Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and Recurrent thoughts about ....
Saturday, April 28, 2012
New Crank Proof of P = NP
For your reading pleasure, here is a new proof that P = NP. It contains other delights, such as a "nontrivial counterexample to Cantor's diagonal argument": a veritable garden of crankiness.
How much of this paper actually makes sense to you? I understand nothing except that a contradiction to a well established proof in 2 pages is probably incorrect. Maybe that's the point...
It looks as if this author made the mistake of confusing the set of real numbers with the set of real numbers which have either a finite or a repeating decimal expansion.
The fact that the author did not seem to cite any of his listed references in the text is a particularly nice touch.
By the way, better be careful, the guy could be dangerous. He claims to have painted a fake Picasso over a real Picasso (http://www.jmarkinman.com/?p=151).
I feel so stupid. I can't even parse the very first formula. What does the existential quantifier do inside a summation?
ReplyDeleteHow did you come across such a gem?
How much of this paper actually makes sense to you? I understand nothing except that a contradiction to a well established proof in 2 pages is probably incorrect. Maybe that's the point...
ReplyDeleteTakis:
ReplyDeleteIt is a rare talent of mine.
It looks as if this author made the mistake of confusing the set of real numbers with the set of real numbers which have either a finite or a repeating decimal expansion.
ReplyDeleteIt's great how he uses \sum instead of \Sigma. . .
ReplyDeleteBut wait, it's written with TeX. How can it possibly be wrong?!
ReplyDelete~~ Paul
Harriet: that is a common feature of Cantor Crankery posted at Mark CC's blog.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the author did not seem to cite any of his listed references in the text is a particularly nice touch.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, better be careful, the guy could be dangerous. He claims to have painted a fake Picasso over a real Picasso (http://www.jmarkinman.com/?p=151).