Tang is smart, but the author of this piece is unfairly characterizing Aaronson's beliefs and the nature of the P=NP problem.
I don't know a single mathematician or computer scientist researcher that thinks that P=NP is likely. I know they exist, based on this poll[0], but in practice P equaling NP would be incredibly surprising. And even if it does somehow, I highly doubt the equality would practically hold.
The reason I think it is fair for Aaronson to operate as if P!=NP is that even if it is unproven, it doesn't mean we can't make judgements about its relative likelihood. I haven't proven that all beetles are slower than the fastest cheetah, but based on what I understand about cheetahs and beetles I can operate as if I do and change my mind if I'm proven wrong. I think it's less likely that P=NP than it is that a beetle can outrace a cheetah.
Author has a bone to pick with Aaronson‘s politics, and this article uses Tang’s result as proof Aaronson is “full of shit”. Isn’t this the best result Aaronson could hope for from this assignment? A novel conclusion from a student?
I don't know a single mathematician or computer scientist researcher that thinks that P=NP is likely. I know they exist, based on this poll[0], but in practice P equaling NP would be incredibly surprising. And even if it does somehow, I highly doubt the equality would practically hold.
The reason I think it is fair for Aaronson to operate as if P!=NP is that even if it is unproven, it doesn't mean we can't make judgements about its relative likelihood. I haven't proven that all beetles are slower than the fastest cheetah, but based on what I understand about cheetahs and beetles I can operate as if I do and change my mind if I'm proven wrong. I think it's less likely that P=NP than it is that a beetle can outrace a cheetah.
[0] http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/papers/poll2012.pdf