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.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Thane Plambeck tplambeck@gmail.com http://thaneplambeck.typepad.com/