Macrobius
08-17-2011, 04:31 AM
A nice round up on P != NP from RJ Lipton's most excellent blog:
https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/deolalikars-claim-one-year-later/
Deolalikar’s Claim: One Year Later
August 11, 2011
tags: claim, Deolalikar, Proof
by rjlipton
Still no final chapter, lessons learned
Vinay Deolalikar just over a year ago claimed that he had a proof that {\mathsf{P} \neq \mathsf{NP}}.
Today I want to make a short comment on the status of his claim.
I recently received an email asking: Has the anniversary slipped your notice?
No. But there is not a lot to say about the situation—for better or for worse. Here is all that we know publicly:
His web page still claims the result, and explains that it is out to a journal for the standard refereeing process.
A few weeks ago when I inquired “what is up with the proof,” his e-mail reply said the same thing. He still believes that he has a proof, and reiterated that it is being checked by referees.
He has expanded and updated the paper, and claims to have answered all the issues that were raised on the web here and elsewhere.
He will not let the public see his proof, nor will he post it, so it remains an unknown.
Lessons
Ken and I learned several lessons from last year’s event.
There is immense interest in the {\mathsf{P} \neq \mathsf{NP}} problem. This surprised us to some degree. We know the problem is important, is intriguing, and is hard. But we had no idea that so many people would be interested in the prospect of a proof.
There is immense power in the web as a method of understanding mathematical claims. The proof attempt was read by many, and this quickly led to insights about it. From Fields Medalists [This would be Terence Tao, whom Phoran Imperialiste will be studying with in the Fall (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=72408), ob phora -ed.] to professional mathematicians to amateurs, all helped with the analysis of the claim. We were amazed at the power of the crowd in this situation.
There is immense difficulty in explaining a new proof, especially for someone who primarily works in another area. We believe that Vinay’s main area of expertise is not computational complexity. Thus, it is to be expected that he might have trouble in quickly explaining the key insight that could make his proof work. Perhaps more immediately, this may cause trouble understanding the objections raised.
The online community desires quick reactions and assessments. However, intricate mathematical arguments by their nature do not allow for them. What happens is that every word acquires a very high “slope.” Change the perceived meaning of a phrase a little from the intended meaning, and you have a wide difference in collective understanding. This happened with the word “serious” and even the word “proof” itself. The same slope applied to our own ethical decisions about presentation, not always to everyone’s liking.
There is joy in grappling with new challenges, and feeling that others in a world community are pulling with you. This is so even if the evaluation of these challenges finds flaws in their ultimate objective. It is a realm where intellectual honesty prevails, and that is the gold standard of our field. This and our second point above were the aspects noted by popular author Steven Landsburg here.
...
https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/deolalikars-claim-one-year-later/
Deolalikar’s Claim: One Year Later
August 11, 2011
tags: claim, Deolalikar, Proof
by rjlipton
Still no final chapter, lessons learned
Vinay Deolalikar just over a year ago claimed that he had a proof that {\mathsf{P} \neq \mathsf{NP}}.
Today I want to make a short comment on the status of his claim.
I recently received an email asking: Has the anniversary slipped your notice?
No. But there is not a lot to say about the situation—for better or for worse. Here is all that we know publicly:
His web page still claims the result, and explains that it is out to a journal for the standard refereeing process.
A few weeks ago when I inquired “what is up with the proof,” his e-mail reply said the same thing. He still believes that he has a proof, and reiterated that it is being checked by referees.
He has expanded and updated the paper, and claims to have answered all the issues that were raised on the web here and elsewhere.
He will not let the public see his proof, nor will he post it, so it remains an unknown.
Lessons
Ken and I learned several lessons from last year’s event.
There is immense interest in the {\mathsf{P} \neq \mathsf{NP}} problem. This surprised us to some degree. We know the problem is important, is intriguing, and is hard. But we had no idea that so many people would be interested in the prospect of a proof.
There is immense power in the web as a method of understanding mathematical claims. The proof attempt was read by many, and this quickly led to insights about it. From Fields Medalists [This would be Terence Tao, whom Phoran Imperialiste will be studying with in the Fall (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=72408), ob phora -ed.] to professional mathematicians to amateurs, all helped with the analysis of the claim. We were amazed at the power of the crowd in this situation.
There is immense difficulty in explaining a new proof, especially for someone who primarily works in another area. We believe that Vinay’s main area of expertise is not computational complexity. Thus, it is to be expected that he might have trouble in quickly explaining the key insight that could make his proof work. Perhaps more immediately, this may cause trouble understanding the objections raised.
The online community desires quick reactions and assessments. However, intricate mathematical arguments by their nature do not allow for them. What happens is that every word acquires a very high “slope.” Change the perceived meaning of a phrase a little from the intended meaning, and you have a wide difference in collective understanding. This happened with the word “serious” and even the word “proof” itself. The same slope applied to our own ethical decisions about presentation, not always to everyone’s liking.
There is joy in grappling with new challenges, and feeling that others in a world community are pulling with you. This is so even if the evaluation of these challenges finds flaws in their ultimate objective. It is a realm where intellectual honesty prevails, and that is the gold standard of our field. This and our second point above were the aspects noted by popular author Steven Landsburg here.
...