Hacker News Reader

Comment by gberger | Hacker News Reader

Here is some additional context: https://twitter.com/rrwilliams/status/1417161397960646658

Thanks, that is a tweet by Ryan Williams (complexity theorist extraordinaire) who is on the editorial board of that journal, confirming that the paper was rejected, then accidentally dropped into the publish queue.

A better publication venue might have been here: https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm

That page links to a lot of P=NP proofs and also P!=NP proofs. I haven't counted them up lately so I don't know which is ahead.

This entry from the survey was my favorite:

Prediction by Richard Chang:(Univ of MD Balt County, 2066, P6=NP) In the year, 2066 the idea that computers will double in speed every 18 months (Moore’s Law) has been ludicrous for 50years. As such, no one uses asymptotic analysis anymore. Programs are written in assembly language to shave the running time. Some poor assistant professor will prove that P != NP and fail to get tenure for it

Though I would guess predictive programming and execution would look more like an AI system and would be clawing at throughput gains by "learning" how the programmer of the current program expected things to go ... rather than the programmer working in ASM to make it so.

If it gets to that point, which I think it will, then the there will be no such thing as an instruction set. Computing will be reconfigurable asynchronous data flow.

I had never thought of P=NP or not being chosen by vote, but if it's formally undecidable, we might end up there.

what counts as a nontrivial proof? better submit this comment!

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. I was surprised to see ACM on there because if they were even close to publishing something like that it would already be making massive waves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com