

Deolalikar Responds To Issues About His P≠NP Proof - nsoonhui
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/deolalikar-responds-to-issues-about-his-p%E2%89%A0np-proof/

======
amichail
There's quite a lot of interest in the proof by some key experts despite their
general impression that the proof is wrong and unfixable.

Maybe experts are using this proof as an opportunity to promote theoretical
computer science? It's a way to get more grad students and funding?

~~~
vecter
Or, more likely, there are lots of good ideas that can be applied to other
difficult problems.

~~~
nsoonhui
But this is not a sure point; the ideas may be fresh, but it's too early to
tell whether it's useful for other problems in computer science.

~~~
ugh
Doesn’t really matter because if they never care to look they will never find
out.

------
yanowitz
Regardless of how this plays out, this needs to be at the top of Top Science
Stories of 2010 lists. If it is a good proof, Top News Stories of 2010 (or
whatever year it is confirmed).

~~~
jvdh
If this indeed proves P!=NP then i would think it would make a bit more top
lists than just Top Science Stories 2010.

~~~
drcode
I think you're overestimating the value most people place on math theorems. I
doubt this story will be given more importance than "robot who can do the
laundry" or some similarly "soft" science stories by the mainstream press, as
important as it may be.

~~~
yanowitz
OTOH, Wiles work on Fermat's Last Theorem was major news in 1993 and 1994.

~~~
jacquesm
Ask 10 random pedestrians if they remember what the first name was of 'Wiles'
and what he did.

People are far more likely to remember things such as the world trade center
bombing as 'major news'.

I'm happy enough it rated a mention on the 1993 wikipedia page:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993>

------
robinhouston
The sad part is that “Vinay Deolalikar is standing by his P!=NP claim and
proof.”

It will be harder for future attempts to be taken seriously, if even the
author of this comparatively-serious effort ends behaving like a crank rather
than a scientist.

 _Edited to add_ : I don't mean to give the impression I'm unsympathetic to
Deolalikar's predicament. He didn't intend the draft to be public as far as I
know, and it's hard to back down from a public claim like this. But all the
experts who have studied it believe it to be flawed; there is a wiki
documenting specific problems in detail; and Terry Tao is speculating about
whether it could be proven that no strategy of that general sort could
possibly work.

It is definitely a worrying sign for Deolalikar to be standing by his work at
this point. I'm not sure whether the downvotes are because you disagree with
this assessment, or simply because I didn't explain myself very clearly.

If you look at any mathematical crank – and there are many, with varying
levels of mathematical education – the basic story is always the same. It
begins with an honest mistake made in good faith; what distinguishes the crank
is refusal to learn from his or her mistakes.

I hope I'm wrong, and Deolalikar sees sense and withdraws his claim at least
until he's addressed the concerns that have been raised so far.

~~~
sriramk
I have more sympathy. The guy has worked on this for a few years. I'd stick to
my guns too (for a while atleast) :)

~~~
benofsky
He also didn't intend for it to be published!

~~~
shadowfox
I am not surprised by OP's response though. A number of people on Lipton's
page, including some people with strong credentials, were of the opinion that
the researchers were wasting their time.

