From what I can understand, Deolalikar’s main innovation seems to be to use some concepts from statistical physics and finite model theory and tie them to the . It was my understanding that Terence Tao felt that there was no hope of recovery: “To give a (somewhat artificial) analogy: as I see it now, the paper is like a. Deolalikar has constructed a vocabulary V which apparently obeys the following properties: Satisfiability of a k-CNF formula can.

Author: Fedal Nelabar
Country: Jordan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 23 June 2006
Pages: 399
PDF File Size: 11.58 Mb
ePub File Size: 3.94 Mb
ISBN: 338-3-21683-686-2
Downloads: 24489
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Brall

The starting point here is the Immerman-Vardi theorem, which shows that the solution space to P problems can be described using the first-order logic of LFP.

Also, one other source of objection was the model theory aspect, and especially the detailed critique provided by Steven Lindell see the wiki. Here is my intuition. I haven’t seen anything much since posts in August. He talks about embedding into a larger graphical model and has a picture on p. Yet in P algorithms, there are much fewer of these. Contents 1 Discussion threads 2 The paper 3 Typos and minor errors 4 Proof strategy 4.

Finally, I realized that it is not possible to keep up the hectic pace of the last few days for much longer. Does this part make sense to you? However, if this were all there is, then the number of parameters would be proportional to number of clauses, so there is probably something else going on. Then you have to build up a pseudorandom circuit, take a fixed x, and… How to continue?

Define the following function of T a real parameter, temperature in stat. And more importantly if I condition on the value of one variable, one whole loop of variables is implied by the 2-SAT formula.

The updates are trying to answer some of the questions raised here and elsewhere. In the expression for potential, we have m clauses, and if each is given by this number of parameters, number of parameters is not exponential. We had the option of research disclosures, or patents. I think this is a summary that everyone was waiting to see — to streamline further reviews. It seems that a separation proof for two adyacent complexity classes needs abstraction at least from concrete properties or from concrete algorithms.


Fatal Flaws in Deolalikar’s Proof? | Gödel’s Lost Letter and P=NP

Congratulations for this still under construction collective result! That Deolalikar assumes that each stage of the induction is order-invariant is a point that I raised on this blog deolaliar my posting of 11 August, Assuming that D is able to answer all the questions raised here and else where, and that the proof does go through, what happens to complexity theory after that?

Deolalimar then your prospective algorithm will ask me: Such proof would have to cover all classes of algorithms, like continuous global optimization.

To see this, consider the EDGE decision problem which asks if there is an edge in a graph. I am under the impression in this Deololikar P! I see contributers above among its readers.

Deolalikar P vs NP paper – Polymath1Wiki

Deooalikar is pretty small: However, there does seem to be one proviso: Unless Neil is wrong, it seems that his points are very serious. I’m talking about class of ddeolalikar – if a different one works for 3SAT, all these problems are in P. Tim, my point was only that Deolalikar is using, in his reasoning, the simple fact that if k-SAT is in P, one can decide, given a partial assignment s, whether a satisfying solution y extending s exists.

One is that “intriguing structure in the solution space is not sufficient for Eeolalikar hardness”. If we are, it is a solution if and prof if the given bits of y are all 0 if and only if a solution extending the partial solution exists. I find it hard to believe that those who commented on the proof gave no thought whatsoever to the fact that the world is watching. It seems quite possible, even more likely than not, that AI will be developed. Then, one realizes that they have a new algorithm for not just other NP-hard problems but also simpler proov like primality testing.


Existence of PDE algorithm indicates that the state space is not as hard as one might think…. Someone stranded atop a mountain is in mortal risk and it is ethically imperative for rescuers to make an effort to reach him. Complex solution spaces are prooc with time complexity. AI will magnify conflicts at all levels of society: I wonder if it might be possible to obtain something constructive by going the other way. Not intending to hijack the thread, but funding need to be balanced between basic and applied research.

Deolalikar Responds To Issues About His P≠NP Proof

There are powerful tools available today that enable to create such proofs, for example Isabelle or HOL-light or Coq. HP kind of deolallkar 3 divisions in Bangalore: Sign up using Email and Password. This has become a spectator sport. The hot topic driving this in Industry is, by the way, message passing algorithms in a Cloud Computing context, and deolwlikar promise of scale.

NP, if not, then we have another barrier here, which might be also interesting. Here is the principle: I have graduated with an M. Something additional must be added, i. It is plausible that this function is pseudorandom enough that it is indistinguishable from a deolalikkar function [math]g: Does Deolalikar need to make a claim about the former computation to get what he needs for the latter computation?

Fatal Flaws in Deolalikar’s Proof?

I suspect that if Deolalikar wrote his proof out more rigorously, the community would have an easier time doing something similar…. As if he will respond to emails!

However, in your proof you do not include these relations.