# Talk:Researcher claims solution to P vs NP math problem

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Cartman02au in topic Review of revision 1076468 [Passed]

So this needs review, I also need input on whether I explained the technical aspects in an ok fashion (I've tried to tone those aspects down but I'm not completely sure I did a decent job of that). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

- Looks pretty good. Some comments:

- First of all the article switches from it being a math problem to being a theoretical computer science problem. I think we should stick with one, preferably theoretical computer science since thats what I would consider it.
*"The question of whether P equals NP essentially asks whether there are categories of problems where short proofs exist but finding those proofs is difficult"*- I'd maybe reword that to be something like "The question of whether P equals NP essentially asks whether there exists problems which take a long time to solve but whose solution can be checked quickly." (of course the obvious question is what do you mean by "quick" and "long time" but it gets the basic idea across.- "
*but many now difficult problems would likely be easy to solve*" - Might be interesting to talk about NPC here, but I don't know enough about the subject to confidently make any suggestions about that. - Might be good to include an example NP problem, explaining how it takes polynomial time to verify but more to solve.

Bawolff ☺☻ 23:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

## Review of revision 1076468 [Passed]

[edit]
Revision 1076468 of this article has been reviewed by Cartman02au (talk · contribs) and has **Copyright:**Passed**Newsworthiness:**Passed**Verifiability:**Passed**NPOV:**Passed**Style:**Passed
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |

Revision 1076468 of this article has been reviewed by Cartman02au (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC).
**Copyright:**Passed**Newsworthiness:**Passed**Verifiability:**Passed**NPOV:**Passed**Style:**Passed
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |