From the Saudi Gazette we read about the truly astonishing work of Dr. Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna, who claims to have resolved the P vs. NP question.
“The paper has been on the site of Cornell University to conform its academic standards. This means the paper is of relevance and of interest to the scientific community."
No, it means he put it on the arxiv, a preprint archive that happens to be housed at Cornell.
"Dr. Kamouna is currently writing a book that will be entitled “Bi-Polarism Theory: The Death of Computer Science, The End of Mathematics, and The Birth of Logical Physics.”
... which we are all looking forward to read with breathless anticipation.
If this silliness isn't enough to satiate you, you can look at Gerhard Woeginger's page.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
You forgot to mention which way he claims to have resolved it. Which also means you left out the silliest part -- the abstract doesn't mention P vs. NP, but instead claims that SAT isn't actually NP-complete!
...and then in the paper itself he then goes and claims P=NP. Which would imply all problems in NP are NP-complete, but I guess expecting that sort of consistency is just not reasonable.
I'm here with my true identity for any public disputation and the new papers based on lambda calculus are on my blog.
I hope you will not run away!
Rafee Kamouna.
A great P vs NP paper is Barbosa's: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.3965.pdf
The best are the dialogues with the imaginary enemies that try to refute the proofs :)
Dear Jeffrey Shallit,
You are labeling my work as: bad mathematics, crank mathematics and silliness, may I know what you found wrong with my results and why. I find Scott Aaronson in your blog roll who is an editor of ToC which recently reviewed my work. I refuted all their arguments. So, don't run away! ToC (Aaronson) claims I'm not aware that I'm claiming that ZFC is inconsistent! They beleive that paradox recognition is unsolvable. That is their only way to refute SAT is not NP-complete. Which side do you take?
Best,
Rafee Kamouna.
My position is that you are clearly an unrecognized genius who deserves every possible recognition from you government, the world, and the universe.
Thousands of years from now, the euphonious name of Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna will echo down the hallowed halls of mathematics.
So, you chose to be sarcastic because you have no objective argument against my work.
Rafee Kamouna.
If you look at the paper of R Kamouna, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.2947v8.pdf,
you get the impression, merely from the style of writing, that he hasn't written too many mathematical papers.
What is interesting is not so much the content of the paper, but the reason why it is written. I am talking about psychology: what makes certain people firmly believe they have the answer to some hard questions and, regardless of negative messages, failed attempts, etc., they insist in publishing (=publicizing) their "results".
The funniest part of his paper is the appendix (?) titled "A Spatio-Temporal Bi-Polar Disorder
Quantum Theory of Gravity
A Fuzzy Logic Programming Reconciliation". Sounds like material for a new edition of the Sokal & Bricmont classic.
From the article:
"Days will either prove that Dr. Rafee Kamouna is no less than Albert Einstein or just like many other scientists who failed in their pursuit to prove their point."
This journalist seems determined not to be mealy-mouthed in his pursuit of journalistic fairness.
Rafee:
What could I possibly say to detract from the evident merit of your paper?
You are following a fuzzy logic programming paper which has been superseded by 3 lambda calculus papers. The FLP paper was reviewed by JACM on the grounds:"A Turing machine cannot diagonalize against itself as the author claims...". The proof is my 2009 paper:"P=NP iff P!=NP, A Turing Machine that Diagonalizes Against Itslef", which is still being reviewed. If you are serious, you can read those papers on my blog and try to refute them which is impossible.
Best,
Rafee Kamouna.
But Rafee, if it is "impossible", then I clearly cannot do it! Are you trying to suggest yet another paradox in your clever but waggish style?
In one paper, it is proved that SAT is both NP-complete and not NP-complete. In another, there is a language L in NP iff L not in NP. Those proofs are still being reviewed till the moment. If you input a paradox to a Turing machine, it constitutes a counter-example to NP-completeness after re-visiting Cook's proof of SAT being NP-complete.
Best,
Rafee Kamouna.
I think we should bypass the referee process entirely and simply crown Mr. Kamouna king of the world.
Your sarcastic position just reveals that you are incomptent to discuss this.
Rafee Kamouna,
Ah, but I know how to spell "incompetent"! Is that a paradox?
You are incompetent, and you know how to spell it, then that's your best.
This is what I love about this blog!
I think we should bypass the referee process entirely and simply crown Mr. Kamouna king of the world.
Ben Stein should make a movie about him first.
I proved that SAT is both NP-complete (syntax) and not NP-complete (semantics) and that there exists L:L is in NP iff L is not in NP, can you refute any of these results?
But Rafee, you've already said that refutation of your results is impossible. Therefore if I produce a refutation, you get another contradiction! You have too many contradictions already -- I don't think you need any more.
Yes, to refute my proofs, you have to refute yours. So, try. Any referee claims that paradox recognition is unsolvable, while it is trivial to solve. Check referee report on my blog.
Jeff,
It is clear that the schoold kids are more competent that you to discuss this. see: http://apps.topcoder.com/forums/?module=Thread&threadID=745115&start=0&mc=299
Best,
Rafee Kamouna.
I agree entirely, Rafee! "Schoold kids" are exactly the right referees for your paper. Good show!
Be objective. there are 4 referees for the ToC journal where none of them superseded the school kids. Be objective: mention a specific issue.
Best,
Rafee Kamouna.
What issue would you like to discuss? School busing, abortion, raising the retirement age? Please be specific.
You're sarcastic. If you were competent you would have demonstrated any flaw in my proofs. You are the one who posted about me while you cannot refute my results.
But your results are impossible to refute -- you said so yourself! And yet you are angry because I cannot refute them!
This is a paradox of the highest order and clearly deserves your attention.
The ToC journal said that paradox recognition is an unsolvable problem, what so you think? I know you are incompetent to answer.
Since I am incompetent to answer, any answer would not be trustworthy - am I right? So hoping to know my answer suggests a willingness to rely on untrustworthy sources. That seems like a paradox to me! Maybe the extremely wise Rafee Kamouna can help resolve it.
My proofs depend on CS undergraduate material only, do you cover that or....?
You must be kidding. At Waterloo, all of the curriculum is devoted to studying Kamouna Theory. Why, we hosted the First International Conference on Mathematics is Inconsistent! If you were really Rafee Kamouna, you would have known that. I think you must be an imposter.
So, you covered CS undergraduate, great!
See my presentation at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique:
http://www.4shared.com/office/IezDgtsi/P_vs_NP_-_Presentation_4.html
Exposing 70 years of illusion!
Best,
Rafee Kamouna.
Thanks, Rafee. I am writing a book on mathematical crackpots, and this will be helpful.
So, you regard the CNRS, which is on top of all French universities as crackpots? And after all these months you cannot make any objective argument against my work.
Best,
Rafee Kamouna.
And after all these months you cannot make any objective argument against my work.
How could I? You have already told me many times it is irrefutable. Therefore, it is clearly a waste of time to attempt to do so.
"Rafee Kamouna's work is refutable iff it is irrefutable."
Check my recent presentation at CNRS-Paris here:
http://kamouna.wordpress.com/
Check my posts here:
https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/what-would-be-left-if/#comment-30369
I hope that you would comment constructively.
Best,
Rafee Kamouna.
Rafee:
We are always amused by your waggish sense of humor. Your satire on a real academic paper is delightful and inspiring. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have nothing on you!
Post a Comment