
NP = coNP - tantalor
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00095
======
mdxn
I heavily suspect this claim is wrong due to some amateurish mistakes. In
particular, I believe the author is confusing the concepts of "checking" a
solution and "searching" for one. At some points in the paper, their use of
the word "detecting" (an ESS) is equivalent to "checking", but the logic of
the argument (very simple, might I add) seems to equivocate it to "searching
for" an ESS. The distinction between these two tasks is exactly the
distinction between P and NP. So I'm inclined to blame this on lack of reading
comprehension on the author's part when piecing together information from
other works.

Assuming that the author wasn't inconsistent in the meaning of the term
"detection", then they are probably claiming that there is some sort of
polynomial time reduction taking place between recognizing a solution to an
ESS problem (coNP-complete) and recognizing a strict local maximum in a
quadratic program (NP-hard according to the author). I don't see this
explicitly done in the paper and doubt what they have yields one even if I had
more of the context. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to evaluate all of the
citations since they are behind paywalls. I wish there was enough information
in the actual paper to determine this.

------
yzh
So I read this post afterwards:
[http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/is-the-open-
quest...](http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/is-the-open-question-np-
co-np-the-same-as-p-np) Then I know why this proof is important. Hope it can
get through some peer-reviewed journal/conference later.

