Lipton Blog今晚的更新(下午还没有),乱翻译一下。 陶哲轩(菲尔兹奖得主,数学届希望之星,刚成立的5人验证小组成员): 我觉得“这个证明正确吗?”这个基本问题有好几重含义: 1.Deolalikar的证明,经过一些小的修改,是否能证明P不等于NP? 2.Deolalikar的证明,经过一些重大修改,是否能证明P不等于NP? 3.Deolalikar的证明思路(探究随机k-SAT中的独立性特征)是否 有希望导致任何非平凡的计算复杂度分类方面的结果? 经过各方联合努力,现在对#1的答案(虽未完全确定)看来是“否” (参见wiki文档),对#2目前最好的答案是“可能不成立,除非再引入 别的重大新思想。”但我觉得#3仍未完全解决,而且值得继续追究 (尽管不会再是前几天那种狂热的互联网速度)。 Terence Tao: I think there are several levels to the basic question “Is the proof correct?”: 1.Does Deolalikar’s proof, after only minor changes, gi
Q*3
6 楼
REG书上一直说under common law,怎么怎么样。under UCC怎么怎么样。通常UCC和 COMMON LAW的要求是不一样的。需要两者都记么?并记清楚区别,还是记住UCC就可以了?谢谢 :)
基本上没有可能成立了 http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/fatal-flaws-in-deolalikars-proof/ Terence Tao August 13, 2010 2:13 am Neil’s critique does seem to align quite consistently with the consensus that we had just been reaching today, that the problems with the argument are originating from the finite model theory component of the argument and then being indirectly detected also at the random SAT and complexity theory side of things. With reference to the three levels of questions from the previou