

Proof P!=NP (as one-way functions exist)? - 00_NOP
http://cartesianproduct.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/computing-for-teachers/#comments

======
dmunoz
Not much to comment on. See Scott Aaronson's "Eight Signs A Claimed P≠NP Proof
Is Wrong". [0]

[0]
[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458)

------
gertef
[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304)
"Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong"

It's not nice to shine the spotlight on someone to subject them to ridicule.

This paper should be reviewed by someone with a reputation in the field before
being distributed widely.

------
yifanlu
I'm skimming the "simplified" version so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting
this.

> However, if we could obtain the inverse function in a feasible way ...

> The answer would be very simple: First, we start executing y on the program
> M until 5 minutes and ...

> But, this is impossible: we could not reduce the time of 10 centuries to 40
> minutes over L due to L is EXP-complete

I have VERY minimal knowledge of this, but does this proof go into why this
method to "obtain the inverse function in a feasible way" is the ONLY way or
that it encompasses EVERY way to do it?

