Do you believe P=NP?
I've seen some mathematicians say that if P=NP their work would be worthless and restricted to enunciating theorems. They seem to believe that there exist an almost philosophical impediment to P=NP. Do you agree with that? Does the possibility of P=NP bother you?


closed as not constructive by Noah Snyder, Will Jagy, Dan Petersen, Ryan Budney, Tony Huynh Apr 15 '11 at 18:19As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 

Contrary to a popular misunderstanding: if P = NP, then the proof of any statement $A$ can be found by an algorithm in time polynomial in the length of the shortest proof of $A$, not in the length of $A$ itself. Moreover, the exponent of the polynomial could easily be so large as to make this algorithm practically worthless. But most importantly: the shortest, machinegenerated, proof of some theorem is highly unlikely to be the most elegant, illuminating, or just humancomprehensible, proof. Thus this idea that under P = NP, mathematics would be reduced to “enunciating theorems”, is completely misguided. 


"Do you believe P=NP?"  no. "...Do you agree with that? Does the possibility of P=NP bother you?"  no. But what I believe does not matter very much... 


comments.' It is hoped to avoid difficulties that plague many other mathematics websites. As a result, a question such as yours, of the type we think of as "department tea" questions, may be thought of as allowing too much latitude for pontification. Now, the angriest discussions tend to be about the topic of closing questions. Consider looking at the
comments' in other recent closed questions. – Will Jagy Apr 15 '11 at 19:10