Hacker News Reader

That was an honest question. I agree the paper is bad, but I struggle to find the first mistake.

I'm gonna guess it's the assumption that the intermediate steps of the algo can determine that a solution doesn't exist.

>As usual, if the solution does not exist, the process is terminated with a message "No solution at Level 2, Identity 2"

Maybe you can enlighten everyone on why exactly it is a bad paper, by pointing out the first red flag(s) found in the proof itself, assuming you have read and analysed the entire paper to get to that conclusion.

It is not good enough to draw a conclusion without a detailed explanation for a substantial claim like this 'proof'.

I have not read the paper, but being bad is not the same thing as being incorrect, so its weird people are asking for the first error.

For example, bad can mean confusing or poorly written.

Not everyone has the necessary background to see what's wrong with it.

But anyone who has read enough math and cs papers can see that this paper is clearly badly structured, written, and organized. It is a bad paper regardless of the correctness of the argument.