From: Simon Johnson on 9 Aug 2010 09:57 I am no expert in this field (or in any field for that matter :) ) but check this out: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35539144/pnp12pt If this paper's claims are true, the problem is solved. I think we're all agreed that this represents a significant breakthrough in the field of complexity theory.
From: Tom St Denis on 9 Aug 2010 13:40 On Aug 9, 9:57 am, Simon Johnson <simon.john...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am no expert in this field (or in any field for that matter :) ) but > check this out: > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/35539144/pnp12pt > > If this paper's claims are true, the problem is solved. I think we're > all agreed that this represents a significant breakthrough in the > field of complexity theory. And the crowd goes wild. I think this is something that a lot of people assumed true despite the lack of a proof, like the FLT. Cool that we can reduce things to it though. Tom
From: Greg Rose on 9 Aug 2010 14:11 In article <1b2c15fd73ad47d2b41d3a428c79af42(a)d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Tom St Denis <tom(a)iahu.ca> wrote: >On Aug 9, 9:57�am, Simon Johnson <simon.john...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I am no expert in this field (or in any field for that matter :) ) but >> check this out: >> >> http://www.scribd.com/doc/35539144/pnp12pt >> >> If this paper's claims are true, the problem is solved. I think we're >> all agreed that this represents a significant breakthrough in the >> field of complexity theory. > >And the crowd goes wild. > >I think this is something that a lot of people assumed true despite >the lack of a proof, like the FLT. Cool that we can reduce things to >it though. Not my field of expertise either, but the paper looks plausible. However, it will still be a couple of years before enough people who are competent to examine it will be able to agree on whether the proof is correct or not. (Remember, Wiles' first proof was wrong too...) Nice to know we probably aren't all out of jobs. Greg. 
From: Tom St Denis on 9 Aug 2010 14:30 On Aug 9, 2:11 pm, g...(a)nope.ucsd.edu (Greg Rose) wrote: > In article <1b2c15fd73ad47d2b41d3a428c79a...(a)d17g2000yqb.googlegroups..com>, > Tom St Denis <t...(a)iahu.ca> wrote: > > >On Aug 9, 9:57 am, Simon Johnson <simon.john...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am no expert in this field (or in any field for that matter :) ) but > >> check this out: > > >>http://www.scribd.com/doc/35539144/pnp12pt > > >> If this paper's claims are true, the problem is solved. I think we're > >> all agreed that this represents a significant breakthrough in the > >> field of complexity theory. > > >And the crowd goes wild. > > >I think this is something that a lot of people assumed true despite > >the lack of a proof, like the FLT. Cool that we can reduce things to > >it though. > > Not my field of expertise either, but the paper > looks plausible. However, it will still be a > couple of years before enough people who are > competent to examine it will be able to agree on > whether the proof is correct or not. (Remember, > Wiles' first proof was wrong too...) I haven't read the paper but I doubt I'd understand it in depth anyways. And at 100+ pages I have better things to fill my mind with [*] > Nice to know we probably aren't all out of jobs. [*] I play a mean Mozart. :) I have a fallback career if need be. Tom
From: Pubkeybreaker on 9 Aug 2010 14:31 On Aug 9, 2:11 pm, g...(a)nope.ucsd.edu (Greg Rose) wrote: > In article <1b2c15fd73ad47d2b41d3a428c79a...(a)d17g2000yqb.googlegroups..com>, > Tom St Denis <t...(a)iahu.ca> wrote: (Remember, > Wiles' first proof was wrong too...) This is a misleading statement. Wiles first proof was 98% correct but had a gap in one part of the proof. The method and approach for the proof was correct. He needed a bound on the size of a certain set, and thought that he had it bounded using Kolyvagin's "Euler Systems", but the argument was incomplete. He and Richard Taylor jointly closed the gap using a different approach (looking at locally complete intersections of Hecke algebras).

Next

Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: [MR test] Formula for p(k,t) Next: Scalable Key Cryptography  The Universal Model. 