Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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 Scientist at 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 counterargument to one part of the proposed proof