From what I can understand, Deolalikar’s main innovation seems to be to use some concepts from statistical physics and finite model theory and tie them to the . It was my understanding that Terence Tao felt that there was no hope of recovery: “To give a (somewhat artificial) analogy: as I see it now, the paper is like a. Deolalikar has constructed a vocabulary V which apparently obeys the following properties: Satisfiability of a k-CNF formula can.
|Published (Last):||9 July 2010|
|PDF File Size:||15.48 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Retrieved 27 August Does it imply that any decision problem in P has a polynomial delay enumeration algorithm for the number of solutions?
Any typos appearing in an earlier draft that no longer appear in the latest draft should be struck out. From a comment of Cristopher Moore:. Your quantifiers are backwards.
A 3DES problem instance would be about 3 times this size. We have a proof of a theorem that when applied, under the appropriate conditions would imply, for example, deolslikar entropy would decrease in a certain system.
The main discussion threads are being hosted on Dick Lipton’s blog. But one would like to say something stronger, e. This positive correlation holds information. This is related to what Istvan says above.
Scientific proof of P ≠ NP math problem proposed by HP Labs Vinay Deolalikar
The zeta function has so called trivial zeroes at She proves that all the non-trivial zeroes of the zeta function must have a left-to-right symmetry about the line. Journal of the Operational Research Society.
It is of the wrong type and conceptually does not fit. Some kind of lower bound. In this theory, the class P consists of all those decision problems defined below that can be solved on a deterministic sequential machine in an amount of time that is polynomial in the size of the input; the class NP consists of all those decision problems whose positive solutions can be verified in polynomial time given the right information, or equivalently, whose solution can be found in polynomial time on a non-deterministic machine.
P versus NP problem
Aside from being an important problem in computational theory, a proof either way would have profound implications for mathematics, cryptography, algorithm research, artificial intelligencegame theorymultimedia processing, philosophyeconomics and many other fields. I offered early on to talk directly to VInay or dsolalikar have him visit here at our expense so we could help.
Just as the class P is defined in terms of polynomial running time, the class EXPTIME is the set of all decision problems that have exponential running time. It seems that this proof was declared toast several days ago subject to no new material from the author. But I now realize that even people sitting high up in US universities are too strait-jacketed to do anything.
One the whole, the attempt appeared very serious and worth looking into more closely. The FO LFP objections are like a discovery of serious wiring faults in the engine, but the inventor then deolailkar that one can easily fix this by replacing the engine with another, slightly less sophisticated engine.
Ours is a post-graduate and research institution and is recognized as one of the best universities in India. The other problem is that you restrict your attention to monadic fixed points.
Of course, any new material should be sourced whenever possible, and remain constructive and objectively neutral; in particular, personal subjective opinions or speculations are to be avoided.
That volume was jam-packed with jobs and opportunities. Other parts of the paper show that certain NP problems can not be broken up in this manner. What does polylog parameterisable mean? I realized that it is not possible to keep up the hectic pace of the last few days for much longer. We hardly could say more, as there are decision problems in P with corresponding P-complete counting versions.
Deolalikar P vs NP paper – Polymath1Wiki
Using transformations like this, a vast class of seemingly unrelated problems are all reducible to one another, and are in a sense “the same problem”. On the other hand, there are enormous positive consequences that would follow from ceolalikar tractable many currently mathematically intractable problems. If you gave me a problem instance:. This seems to suggest, as I have done above, that the errors are first originating in the finite model theory sections but are only really manifesting themselves when those sections are applied to random k-SAT and thence to the complexity conclusions.
There is an understandable if unfortunate tendency, in the excitement of thinking that one has solved a great problem, to rush out the paper and make the exposition mediocre rather than perfect, no matter how much they are drilled on the importance of good exposition in their education. Dear Vinay Deolalikar, Thank you very much for sharing your paper with me.
But you never know. Proo analyzed and supplied the details.
It is infallible and sound! Many of these contribute to the undesirable behaviour of the space of solutions in a probabilistic sense. Effectively, this, in combination with the order, allows the definition of recursive functions. Please do not put yourself in the same boat as Vinay — this discussion is not about rest of mathematical community vs HP researchers. As for something fixable caught in a close review but not by the referee!