

Fatal Flaws in Deolalikar’s P ≠ NP Proof? - bumbledraven
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/fatal-flaws-in-deolalikars-proof/

======
svag
Just for fun, check this video about Hitler and P vs NP problems...

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIodz9GWxc>

------
guelo
oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
The ride isn't over yet. This happened - in private - to Wiles many times
over, but each time he had the knowledge, insight and ability to add the extra
material.

Then it went public, and even then there was a hole. That eventually required
Taylor's assistance.

Math is like this. Lots of people with tangential deep knowledge are bringing
their attention to the problem, but Deolalikar likely has more that he hasn't
presented yet. I'm not betting the proof is right, but it's not dead yet.

Even more, there're ideas raised here yet to be explored, and who know, even
if this proof doesn't do it on its own, perhaps it will form the foundation of
a successful attack later.

Math goes on.

~~~
bumbledraven
If even R.J. Lipton would "hesitate to draw parallels" between Wiles and
Deolalikar, how much more so should we? As Terry Tao writes, the consensus at
this point seems to be that Deolalikar's general proof strategy -- exploiting
independence properties in random -SAT or similar structures -- does not have
much hope of establishing non-trivial complexity separation result. Link to
Tao's comment on Lipton's blog:
[http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/fatal-flaws-in-
deol...](http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/fatal-flaws-in-deolalikars-
proof/#comment-5223)

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
I agree - what I'm saying is that people in the blogosphere and twitterverse
seem to flail between the extremes all too quickly, rather than letting things
take their course. It feels like people are going to declare "Well, that's
that, then." and move on to other things despite there still being much to
mine, and potentially results still to find.

Perhaps that would be a good thing. Let the experts work on it carefully,
calmly and quietly without being constantly harried by the kibitzers demanding
definite answers.

~~~
bumbledraven
While the non-experts did get excited early on, I haven't observed any
flailing between extremes on the blogs of the computational complexity
theorists I follow (R.J. Lipton and Scott Aaronson). Initially, Lipton seemed
neutral, and Aaronson was skeptical. Since then, I've seen the dial on
Lipton's blog move steadily towards "nothing to see here, move along".

I personally agree with those who believe that the draft is too disorganized
to warrant further study by experts. If the author had used the traditional
definition/proof/lemma style, the problems that have been pointed out so far
would have been immediately visible, rather taking the experts days to
untangle. [edit: For example, John Harrison, the author of the HOL Light
proof-checking system, wrote on August 10: "As far as I can tell, nobody’s
quite managed to work out what exactly the statistical property of k-SAT he’s
using _is_." <http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=456#comment-44852>]

I don't mean this as a critique of the Deolalikar himself, but I do think he
sent out his draft too soon.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
It seems to me (with no privileged information) that he suffered from sending
a written copy to a selcet number who he expected would treat it in
confidence, but not all of whom did. I think it's great that he had a "thought
piece" written, and I think it's great that he started to consult a few
trusted colleagues. I think it's a real shame that the "think piece" was
leaked.

If he'd taken six months to go over it in person, orally, calmly and in
seclusion with a few chosen colleagues then there may have been a chance to
either declare it unworkable, or to fix the holes. As it is, that didn't
happen and we get this mess.

On the other hand, lots of people have seen - in some sense - real math in
action. Maybe that's a good thing.

