mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Math Stuff > Computer Science & Computational Number Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-08-13, 13:17   #23
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by only_human View Post
I was fascinated watching the developing evaluation of the paper. A preliminary consensus seems complete. Here is a blog that takes an optimistic view of this new form of peer review: http://cameronneylon.net/blog/p-%E2%...f-peer-review/ Perhaps blitz-read is a more apt term.

Among my peripatetic browsing about all of this I came across Leslie Valiant's theory of holographic algorithms which exponentially speed up some computations; this was very interesting to me. There is a (mod 7) operation that seems to be part of canceling a large part of the calculations -- leaving a simpler system to be counted (and that by some kind of weighing). It reminded me a bit of the AKS method so simplifying a row.

The proof is now being given a proper burial. The final nail in the coffin
comes from:

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/0...alikars-proof/


IMO there is nothing unusual about the peer review process that took place
for this paper EXCEPT that it took place in full view of the public. It is
quite typical for a proof of a dramatic result to be distributed by the author
to a number of expert peers for pre-publication criticism. However, this
is usually done privately. The only thing new about this paper is that the
reviews appeared on Internet blogs, instead of being done by private mail/email.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-13, 17:44   #24
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

2·1,877 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
IMO there is nothing unusual about the peer review process that took place
for this paper EXCEPT that it took place in full view of the public. It is
quite typical for a proof of a dramatic result to be distributed by the author
to a number of expert peers for pre-publication criticism. However, this
is usually done privately. The only thing new about this paper is that the
reviews appeared on Internet blogs, instead of being done by private mail/email.
I felt that the character of the review was a bit different. For example, I don't think it would be likely for a stately private peer review process to include a substantial money offer to express an opinion that the paper is deeply flawed. Also there was a Google Docs collaborative paper that was moved to a wiki for documentation and collaboration of analysis. I think in a traditional review, the reviewers would try not to collaborate so as to not influence each other's analysis and expectations as a safeguard against unintentional bias.
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-13, 17:53   #25
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

3·1,993 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by only_human View Post
I felt that the character of the review was a bit different. For example, I don't think it would be likely for a stately private peer review process to include a substantial money offer to express an opinion that the paper is deeply flawed.
Scott wasn't a part of the reviewing, though. He made the offer mostly to discourage emails...
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-13, 18:05   #26
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

72528 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
Scott wasn't a part of the reviewing, though. He made the offer mostly to discourage emails...
True; I hope this kerfuffle didn't disrupt his vacation too much. On the other hand, in a sense, everyone who commented, in any way, became an ad-hoc part of the review process. I am amazed that some of the really wobbly wheels online didn't muscle their way into the discussion.
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-13, 18:57   #27
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

11101001001002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by only_human View Post
True; I hope this kerfuffle didn't disrupt his vacation too much. On the other hand, in a sense, everyone who commented, in any way, became an ad-hoc part of the review process. I am amazed that some of the really wobbly wheels online didn't muscle their way into the discussion.
Some of them did (e.g. a number of ignorant people make comments about
how NP stood for "non polynomial")
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 04:20   #28
Primeinator
 
Primeinator's Avatar
 
"Kyle"
Feb 2005
Somewhere near M52..

91510 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
The proof is now being given a proper burial. The final nail in the coffin
comes from:

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/0...alikars-proof/

Too bad! It would have been nice to see this problem solved.
Primeinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 05:21   #29
ixfd64
Bemusing Prompter
 
ixfd64's Avatar
 
"Danny"
Dec 2002
California

2×32×137 Posts
Default

Oh well. At least he tried.
ixfd64 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 07:53   #30
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

145128 Posts
Default Peer review

Excerpt from my great Oxford friend Paul Seymour:

"Did you hear that there might be a proof that P != NP? It looks very plausible (ie long and unintelligible, but sounding as though the person writing it was an expert). Better than a proof that P=NP I guess, that would have made much of my mathematical life pointless."

David

(Google as necessary)

Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2010-08-15 at 07:54
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 07:54   #31
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

11×19×47 Posts
Default

...well at least now his life is still pointful.
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 13:10   #32
Primeinator
 
Primeinator's Avatar
 
"Kyle"
Feb 2005
Somewhere near M52..

3×5×61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davieddy View Post
Excerpt from my great Oxford friend Paul Seymour:

"Did you hear that there might be a proof that P != NP? It looks very plausible (ie long and unintelligible, but sounding as though the person writing it was an expert). Better than a proof that P=NP I guess, that would have made much of my mathematical life pointless."

David
Is it general consensus that P and NP are not equal?
Primeinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 13:57   #33
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"๐’‰บ๐’ŒŒ๐’‡ท๐’†ท๐’€ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

32·5·251 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Primeinator View Post
Is it general consensus that P and NP are not equal?
AFAIK, the general consensus is that it unlikely that P and NP are not equal. However, the general consensus has been wrong on numerous occasions in the past.

FWIW, my guess is that P !=NP but that there is a fair chance that integer factorization is in P.


Paul
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
News gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 254 2022-05-18 19:39
News gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 304 2022-04-19 23:07
Other news Cruelty Riesel Prime Search 41 2010-03-08 18:46
The news giveth, the news taketh away... NBtarheel_33 Hardware 17 2009-05-04 15:52
News KEP Riesel Base 3 Attack 4 2008-12-17 11:54

All times are UTC. The time now is 08:17.


Fri May 20 08:17:39 UTC 2022 up 36 days, 6:18, 0 users, load averages: 1.55, 1.62, 1.63

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

โ‰  ยฑ โˆ“ รท ร— ยท โˆ’ โˆš โ€ฐ โŠ— โŠ• โŠ– โŠ˜ โŠ™ โ‰ค โ‰ฅ โ‰ฆ โ‰ง โ‰จ โ‰ฉ โ‰บ โ‰ป โ‰ผ โ‰ฝ โŠ โŠ โŠ‘ โŠ’ ยฒ ยณ ยฐ
โˆ  โˆŸ ยฐ โ‰… ~ โ€– โŸ‚ โซ›
โ‰ก โ‰œ โ‰ˆ โˆ โˆž โ‰ช โ‰ซ โŒŠโŒ‹ โŒˆโŒ‰ โˆ˜ โˆ โˆ โˆ‘ โˆง โˆจ โˆฉ โˆช โจ€ โŠ• โŠ— ๐–• ๐–– ๐–— โŠฒ โŠณ
โˆ… โˆ– โˆ โ†ฆ โ†ฃ โˆฉ โˆช โŠ† โŠ‚ โŠ„ โŠŠ โŠ‡ โŠƒ โŠ… โŠ‹ โŠ– โˆˆ โˆ‰ โˆ‹ โˆŒ โ„• โ„ค โ„š โ„ โ„‚ โ„ต โ„ถ โ„ท โ„ธ ๐“Ÿ
ยฌ โˆจ โˆง โŠ• โ†’ โ† โ‡’ โ‡ โ‡” โˆ€ โˆƒ โˆ„ โˆด โˆต โŠค โŠฅ โŠข โŠจ โซค โŠฃ โ€ฆ โ‹ฏ โ‹ฎ โ‹ฐ โ‹ฑ
โˆซ โˆฌ โˆญ โˆฎ โˆฏ โˆฐ โˆ‡ โˆ† ฮด โˆ‚ โ„ฑ โ„’ โ„“
๐›ข๐›ผ ๐›ฃ๐›ฝ ๐›ค๐›พ ๐›ฅ๐›ฟ ๐›ฆ๐œ€๐œ– ๐›ง๐œ ๐›จ๐œ‚ ๐›ฉ๐œƒ๐œ— ๐›ช๐œ„ ๐›ซ๐œ… ๐›ฌ๐œ† ๐›ญ๐œ‡ ๐›ฎ๐œˆ ๐›ฏ๐œ‰ ๐›ฐ๐œŠ ๐›ฑ๐œ‹ ๐›ฒ๐œŒ ๐›ด๐œŽ๐œ ๐›ต๐œ ๐›ถ๐œ ๐›ท๐œ™๐œ‘ ๐›ธ๐œ’ ๐›น๐œ“ ๐›บ๐œ”