Comments:Researcher claims solution to P vs NP math problem

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Comments on this page were originally made using the LiquidThreads extension, which is no longer supported. It has since been exported to wikitext, but the export process was not perfect so comments may appear slightly oddly.

Start a new discussion

very good trying to salve the huge problem p=np

Comments from feedback form - "Cool article, nice job!"

Cool article, nice job! 69.31.35.200 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Too much internet buzz about t..."

Too much internet buzz about this thing. The story doesn't help. The comparisons to Perelman aren't apt. The title is misleading: a guy claimed to have solved the problem, nobody at any point found the proof convincing or even expressed much optimism about it, though they were open to being convinced (i.e. the paper wasn't obvious nonsense like a lot of such papers are). Within a few days enough problems had been found that the reviewers are basically saying "nice try". The author hasn't yet given up but it doesn't look likely that he can fix the problems.

Please change the title of the article to something like "Researcher claims solution to P vs NP math problem". The current title makes it sound like other mathematicians believe the proposed solution. They don't. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the title is misleading. I have changed it per your suggestion. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Any idea what happened to the edits I made? 67.122.209.167 (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they are in the article, BKCW8 made some later edits that might have changed yours - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikinews/en/w/index.php?title=Researcher_claims_solution_to_P_vs_NP_math_problem&action=historysubmit&diff=1077218&oldid=1077153 Bawolff ☺☻ 05:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "P=NP"

P=NP 168.87.3.33 (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is my opinion about this problem.

What is a solution:

1. It should be possible to write it as an algebraic expression

2. It should can answer different questions

The answer to that question= Verified a solution

It means that answer of a question is proportional to solution (that has those conditions)

When there isn’t any answer for 2⅓ it means math is not complete and need a new topic. So for P and NP problem math may need a new topic.

Parym (symbol:b (not the main symbol) ): everything you do on a number to number equals to it.

When we say that Parym is a member of a set it means that numbers have to be a member of that set.

Some examples for Parym:

1. b2

b∈N( it means that you can’t use negative or minus numbers)

b{ 16 }

If you write 16÷2 is wrong because we have to know where does 2 come from.

Solution: 16+16=32 , 32-16=2

2. b2

b∈N

b{3 }

3. b-n=-n

It has an answer ( so because it has answer it means solution is right and find

b∈N that is easy) but doesn’t have any answer( so can’t also be quickly solved by a

computer)

I’m Soroush Hoseinpour from Iran( e-mail: hosenpursoroush@yahoo.com) Soroush hosienpour (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)