"Vinay Deolalikar. P is not equal to NP. 6th August, 2010 (66 pages 10pt, 102 pages 12pt). Manuscript sent on 6th August to several leading researchers in various areas. Confirmations began arriving 8th August early morning. The preliminary version made it to the web without my knowledge. I have made minor updates, here." (related link)
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
asked Aug 10, 2010 at 11:26
-
6$\begingroup$ See the meta: tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/590 and the closed question: mathoverflow.net/questions/34953/whats-wrong-with-this-proof $\endgroup$– Harun ŠiljakCommented Aug 10, 2010 at 11:32
-
6$\begingroup$ Just to add to my previous comment: there is now a polymath wiki page here: michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/… , so you can be up-to-date with the info there. $\endgroup$– Harun ŠiljakCommented Aug 10, 2010 at 11:35
-
7$\begingroup$ I think that it is a mistake to stamp out every version of this question, although the issue has been clouded by poorly phrased questions. The question that was answered below was, "Are there good references that discuss Deolalikar's claimed proof that P ≠ NP?". I think that it's perfectly fair and useful to ask such a question once, if it is phrased that way. $\endgroup$– Greg KuperbergCommented Aug 10, 2010 at 16:29
-
2$\begingroup$ I agree that it would be useful to ask and answer that question once. I don't know why you think this is the best question to alter to that purpose but, if it is edited in that manner, I'd be glad to reopen it. $\endgroup$– David E SpeyerCommented Aug 10, 2010 at 19:53
-
$\begingroup$ I guess I don't know why either. :-) $\endgroup$– Greg KuperbergCommented Aug 11, 2010 at 1:25
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Issues In The Proof That P≠NP
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/issues-in-the-proof-that-p%e2%89%a0np/
it shall not come through..
