Scott Aaronson explains his $200k bet (8 Signs A Claimed P≠NP Proof Is Wrong)

This is actually a really great explanation and, perhaps more importantly, a really great example of how science and other academic pursuits really work. Personally, I study computational biochemistry and a lot of work appears on the arXiv long before the official publications. So, I try to keep up with the arXiv, but as this is all non-peer-reviewed I have a similar checklist that I use before spending more time going into the details of the paper.

That's not to say that this paper should have been disregarded out of hand. There's a difference between a crackpot and a honest good attempt that deserves further scrutiny. Still, with the number of papers that get published these days, having a list like this is a valuable tool.

Point 8 seems a bit unfair - the proof author's comments to me seemed to be 'confirmations of receipt' have started arriving (not confirmations of validation) and 'as you know this problem has philosophical ramifications' (not 'I have forever changed the philosophical landscape'). Otherwise seems like a neat article, maybe I should memorize the other points, could come in handy at dinner parties (cause I, like a lot of other people over the last week, don't know wtf any of this mathematical stuff really means).

Author has posted a new synopsis (which answers the first objection raised by Scott and perhaps more) and claims to put out a version addressing the issues raised in 3-4 days. http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Vinay_Deolalikar/

One good thing this whole paper and debate has done is motivated to get my honours thesis done, mine obviously is nowhere near as profound but it is great to watch people on the edge of advancement in the field attempt to give us new understanding.

The nerds with only a cursory interest in the problem are awed.