I recently heard a radio program which claimed that Einstein's 1921 Nobel prize was one of the most valuable ever granted, after adjusting for inflation & currency fluctuations. After doing a web search, however, I have been unable to find the reference. Perhaps one of you knows? It is well documented that Einstein did not invest the money well, and most of it was lost in the Depression. At 07:29 AM 8/9/2010, Thane Plambeck wrote:
Scott has offered to kick in $200K on top of the Claymath $1M prize if the proof is correct
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=456
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Steve Rowley <sgr@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Scott Aaronson wrote a nice, not-too-complexity-theory-techical paper about the implications with soap bubbles, Steiner trees, what can work & what can't in quantum computing, and a number of other things:
S Aaronson, "NP-complete Problems and Physical Reality" http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomplete.pdf
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 19:54:15 -0700 From: Kerry Mitchell <lkmitch@gmail.com>
Assuming for the moment that the proof holds up, what are the implications of P != NP?
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Michael Kleber <michael.kleber@gmail.com wrote:
Vinay Deolalikar sent out email Friday night with a claimed proof that P != NP.
Paper at
http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP/Deolalikar.pdf<http://www.win.tue.nl/%7Egwoegi/P-versus-NP/Deolalikar.pdf> <http://www.win.tue.nl/%7Egwoegi/P-versus-NP/Deolalikar.pdf> http://www.scribd.com/doc/35539144/pnp12pt
Some discussion at
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cytlp/serious_attempt_that_p_np... -- Steve Rowley <sgr@alum.mit.edu> http://alum.mit.edu/www/sgr/ Skype: sgr000 It is very dark & after 2000. If you continue, you are likely to be eaten by a bleen.
-- Thane Plambeck tplambeck@gmail.com http://thaneplambeck.typepad.com/