Saturday, April 28, 2012

New Crank Proof of P = NP

For your reading pleasure, here is a new proof that P = NP. It contains other delights, such as a "nontrivial counterexample to Cantor's diagonal argument": a veritable garden of crankiness.

8 comments:

Takis Konstantopoulos said...

I feel so stupid. I can't even parse the very first formula. What does the existential quantifier do inside a summation?

How did you come across such a gem?

Unknown said...

How much of this paper actually makes sense to you? I understand nothing except that a contradiction to a well established proof in 2 pages is probably incorrect. Maybe that's the point...

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Takis:

It is a rare talent of mine.

Harriet said...

It looks as if this author made the mistake of confusing the set of real numbers with the set of real numbers which have either a finite or a repeating decimal expansion.

Jeffo said...

It's great how he uses \sum instead of \Sigma. . .

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said...

But wait, it's written with TeX. How can it possibly be wrong?!

~~ Paul

Valhar2000 said...

Harriet: that is a common feature of Cantor Crankery posted at Mark CC's blog.

Joel Reyes Noche said...

The fact that the author did not seem to cite any of his listed references in the text is a particularly nice touch.

By the way, better be careful, the guy could be dangerous. He claims to have painted a fake Picasso over a real Picasso (http://www.jmarkinman.com/?p=151).