Talk:P versus NP problem

Gao Ming paper

Yes, it is only a pre-print, and he'll have to publish it in a journal, but I've skim read through Gao Ming's paper, and I'm not seeing the problem. I think we should refer to it until such time as anyone finds a flaw in it. My edit was reverted by someone who didn't say why. What do others think? Dan88888 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Lots of people publish "solutions" to famous open problems. For reasons of due weight, to include such an announcement in this article would require significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, rather than a "skim read" by an individual Wikipedia editor. --JBL (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with JBL. There are hundreds of these crank papers out there. Trying to cover each one would overwhelm our article, and also violate the requirement of WP:FRINGE that we cover fringe material according to what mainstream sources say about it, not what the fringe material says about itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

But Dan8888 has skimmed it and doesn't see a problem! Why isn't that good enough? Personally I'm convinced N vs NP has now been solved. EEng 19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just set P=1? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've learned more about Wikipedia this weekend, and now agree with the two comments above (but not with the ones below). Incidentally, my native Chinese speaking friend is convinced Gao Ming is a made-up name, which doesn't bode well for it being a successful attempt! Dan88888 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I see it has got as far as being published with a peer review process https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-28073-3_41

https://saiconference.com/FICC2024/CallforPapers Dan88888 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes sure: [1] [2]. --JBL (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not claiming it is a good publisher. I've never heard of it before. However, the evidence you provided I see falls short of proving it is a not a good one.

Also, by way of comparison, the 2010 “proof” was quickly shot down on the internet, and this time, that hasn't happened. I would think, there would be people motivated to move in, particularly on a journal that was perceived as a bad one. ~~~~ Dan88888 (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No, as a general rule people do not waste time debunking fake proofs published in fake journals, for obvious reasons. --JBL (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong claims require careful checking. Remember Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem? He did not do a pre-print, but he presented the proof over several days of lectures to a group of other expert mathematicians, and they agreed he had solved it (rather stronger statement than a single person skimming a paper). But even so, a fatal bug was found in the peer review process, that took two years to fix using techniques that were not in the original proof. So we need to let the peer-review process play out. LouScheffer (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

But in the end Wiles was right after all, so all that checking and debugging turned out to be a waste of time. If everyone'd just believed him in the first place ('cause he is, after all, wicked smaht) then they could have spent those two years doing something useful like squaring the circle. EEng 06:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

March 27

Anyone know why this page spiked in views according to this graph? Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are two guesses for the 14,000 accesses that day. One is that the page was mentioned in some popular newspaper or social media account, with a clickable link. Google news shows only one mention on 27 March (in this article on the Pythagorean Theorem), and it's not clickable. So I think social media is more likely. Another possibility is programs fetching the page, perhaps for a large enrollment computer science course, or perhaps just a bug that fetches the page over and over. I'm sure many other explanations are possible. LouScheffer (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Similar problem

Hello @Jasper Deng:
Could you comment this revert? [3]
Do you think only unsolved problems may be mentioned in the article?
Yet another painter (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is the algorithm allowed to run?

afaik, the current problem description does not specify 'where' the algorithm is allowed to run. On a turing machine, or just any possible system in the physical world? The latter then means that for P != NP there is no possible physical system what so ever, that can compute NP problem in polynomial time. No time loop computers, nothing.

I think these are slightly different problems because if ANY system is allowed this is really a problem about reality itself, not just turing machines 2A00:20:600D:2768:4635:D54A:452:6124 (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Consequences of solution section

This section feels very much like it is ChatGPT written. Sure is has some quotes and citations which is unlike ChatGPT, but the style of writing besides that seems exactly like the style ChatGPT writes in. If someone competent used GPT to help them write an accurate section that's fine, but I'm worried about the possibility of someone just copy pasting GPT's output verbatim and adding some links in. 104.39.200.237 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The text in that section is much older than ChatGPT. --JBL (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)