70 likes | 140 Views
What's All This About P ≠ NP?. Ken Clarkson Ron Fagin Ryan Williams. IBM Research – Almaden. Does P = NP? Or, P vs. NP. A mathematical issue, not a legal one A million dollar problem Most everyone thinks P ≠ NP the problem is to prove it On August 6, Vinay Deolalikar proposed a proof.
E N D
What's All This About P ≠ NP? Ken Clarkson Ron Fagin Ryan Williams IBM Research – Almaden
Does P = NP? Or, P vs. NP A mathematical issue, not a legal one A million dollar problem Most everyone thinks P ≠ NP the problem is to prove it On August 6, Vinay Deolalikar proposed a proof
Taking this proposed proof seriously People claim proofs all the time, but: D. is a Principal Research Scientistat HP Steve Cook said “This appears to be a relatively serious claim...” Dick Lipton said “...this is a serious effort...” Moshe Vardi said “This looks like a serious paper...” However: it doesn't look like the proof goes through
Finding flaws can take time Four-color Theorem Proven 1879 (Kempe) Bug found 1890 (Heawood) Hilbert's 21st problem Solved 1908 Counterexample 1990 Hilbert's 16th problem, special case Proven 1923 Gaps 1980 Proven 1991
Internet time August 6: Manuscript is sent to 22 people, including Ron Fagin, and put on webpage 7: Blog post (Greg Baker) 8: Slashdot 9: Wikipedia article about D. 10: Wiki for technical discussion established About 340 edits since Fields Medalists are involved And, first version of paper removed 15: Commemorative blogpost: The P≠NP “Proof” Is One Week Old
Updates in internet time First draft, Aug 6 Overwritten several times, removed Aug 17 Second draft Aug 9 to Aug 10 Draft 2 + ε, Aug 9 to Aug 11 Third draft, Aug 11 to Aug 17 Three-page synopsis, Aug 13 Only current public version
Local relevance We have some local experts. In particular: Ron Fagin Founder of Finite Model Theory FMT is a work in mathematical logic Impact on database queries, combinatorics, complexity Ryan Williams [IBM Raviv Fellow] has been very active in the on-line discussions And in particular, gave a convincing counter-argument to one part of the proposed proof