Confirmation as in "Thank you, I have recieved your paper which looks interesting and will read it when I find time", not as in "I have read your paper and fond that all details are correct", obviously.
Just like he wouldn't mention the font size of the paper in the original announcement.
I seriously doubt that any of these confirmations did confirm more the the receipt of a paper that seems to look legit, nobody can verify 66 pages of advanced math in 10pt in one or two days.
Posting that comment url over and over in this thread won't make your point any more or less valid than it already is. Please stop trying to spam your opinion at people that disagree with you.
That comment contains no content that tells us whether 'confirmations' means 'confirmations that my proof is valid' or 'confirmations that they received my proof.' That comment is just a response that assumes the first definition, and does nothing to tell us why the second definition is invalid.
Scott: "I saw that comment too … and to be honest, it was sort of the final straw that inspired my $200k bet. The idea that anyone could “confirm” a 103-page proof after only two days strains credulity. And even if they did, is the vague reassurance of confirmations by unnamed “leading researchers in various areas” supposed to sway anyone? Who does Deolalikar think he’s dealing with?"
If something an obviously intelligent person says sounds preposterous, maybe you should question your own reading before assuming malice?
Confirming the reception of an unpublished paper is basic scientific courteousness, and citing these confirmations establishes priority that it was in fact him who first distributed this paper in a small circle before someone else put it up on the web.
Move on, this is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
