

Scott Aaronson adds $200K to prize money if P≠NP proof correct - lkozma
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=456

======
randomwalker
This is a confusing post by Aaronson. A commenter on that post interprets the
offer to mean that Aaronson thinks the proof is almost certainly flawed,
arguing that if expressing his certitude has a value of (say) $100 to
Aaronson, then Aaronson believes the probability that it is correct is 1/2000.
I originally read it this way as well, as did Eliezer:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1587295>

But then Aaronson responded by saying "If I were a Bayesian rationalist, I’m
sure I’d agree with you!" and instead claims that the rationale for the $200k
is that "If P≠NP has indeed been proved, my life will change so dramatically
that having to pay $200,000 will be the least of it." and that "If P≠NP is
proved, then to whatever extent theoretical computer science continues to
exist at all, it will have a very different character."

That almost sounds like the justification for a reversed insurance bet, except
of course that if the proof if wrong then Aaronson doesn't stand to gain
anything. So yeah, confusing.

Bottom line, I would caution against interpreting this to mean Aaronson is
betting against the proof.

~~~
nsoonhui
I think he believes that P!=NP, but he also believes that the proof offered is
deeply flawed.

His bet is to emphasize the second point. The fact that he wont' gain anything
if the proof is wrong and lost $200K if the proof is correct only underscores
how strongly he believes the proof is almost certainly flawed.

~~~
studer
Well, he also states that he hasn't really spent any time analyzing the proof,
so it's not like he _knows_ that it's deeply flawed. Isn't Aaronson
maintaining a bit of a bad-boy online persona? Could just be his way of saying
what Bill Gasarch just wrote on his blog:

 _"So what are my uninformed views? If I was a betting man I would bet that it
won't pan out. I would bet that he proved something very interesting, but not
P ≠ NP. Why do I think this? This is NOT based on the author who seems to be a
person to be taken seriously. Its just that the problem is so hard and we've
made no progress on it since... . Hmmm, when is the last time we made progress
on it?"_

~~~
eru
There has been lots of progress. We know a lot of things that (for sure!) that
can't settle the question.

To quote (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1586749>): >> It's known that a
proof resolving P vs NP can't relativize, can't be "natural", and can't
"algebrize". <<

------
rndmcnlly0
The proof in questions attempts to show that P != NP, contrary to the title
here.

~~~
lkozma
I posted it as P!=NP originally but the editors changed the title (or are
exclamation marks removed by default ?)

~~~
lg
I think there's a scrub rule about '!' since it's a predictor of a biased
headline.

------
clistctrl
My favorite part of the internet is the potential to archive the trivial.
Looking back at history during ground breaking revelations you may be able to
find an old news paper that may have published a few of the better written
opinions. Today though publishing your thoughts is effortless, and storing
data is (relatively) cheap. The potential exists to archive the thoughts, and
reactions of common people (as well as experts) which provide a fantastic
historical perspective. Something that never existed before. I hope someone
out there (like wayback machine) is working on this :)

