

P = NP - gzanitti
http://feedly.com/k/1bh7aoX

======
saidajigumi
[Meta: please submit the direct link, not a link-shortened version]

This arXiv paper[1] is apparently from 2012. A good meta-resource and summary
of attempts on P ?= NP, including this one, can be found at [2]. From [2]:

> Among all these papers, there is only a single paper that has appeared in a
> peer-reviewed journal, that has thoroughly been verified by the experts in
> the area, and whose correctness is accepted by the general research
> community: The paper by Mihalis Yannakakis. (And this paper does not settle
> the P-versus-NP question, but "just" shows that a certain approach to
> settling this question will never work out.)

[1] arXiv summary:
[http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954](http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954)

[2] [http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-
NP.htm](http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm)

------
fishtoaster
Some context would be helpful. Is the a credible computer scientist, or just
another crackpot? What has been the response of the mathematical community to
this? What, if any, are the criticisms of it?

It looks like there have been a number of versions of this paper since last
year: [http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954](http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954)

So, has anything changed?

------
mabbo
Wasn't this submitted this morning? At which point the community agreed that
it was a crackpot?

Why do I get the feeling the same person submitted it again hoping to catch
the late-night readers off-guard...

~~~
daenz
Do you have a link to that please?

------
alvare
[https://sites.google.com/site/sergeyvyakhontov/home/peqnp-
pa...](https://sites.google.com/site/sergeyvyakhontov/home/peqnp-paper-status)

------
Refefer
...this would be a huge deal if verified. Anyone with the background to
understand this able to reduce the paper presented into more manageable terms?

------
wtpiu
chrome can't verify authenticity of this link

~~~
ben0x539
What does that even mean? It looks like an authentic link to me.

