On May 9, 12:15 pm, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez <mariano.suarezalva...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 mayo, 05:18, Martin Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > An informal and highly experimental, unorthadox proof P=NP has been > > published on CERN preprints. > > >http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1164206/files/s1-ln5758210-9223534-19396... > > > It is mine, and no it is not published anywhere else. My purpose in > > posting it here is for feedback and suggestions on how to strengthen > > it. > > > I would specifically, as was my intention with this experiment, like > > feedback from anyone interested in the methodology I used and > > suggestion as to how I might go about pursuing a more broadly accepted > > peer-reviewed published proof building on this basic result. > > A two-page, literally unreadable text with nothing in it (at least > that did not get mangled) even remotely similar to anything related to > computational complexity theory is not something you can get feedback > on. > It is actually even impossible to see *what* it is you want feedback > on. > > -- m
familiar with the Internet...a huge+
re: --m: Facts in Proof. Evidence. Evaluation of Evidence, (that is very, very, thoughtful and patience of you to react with such kindness, care, insight, and attention to detail even when it is sometimes painfully obvious the secret missing logical component needed to definitively refute any proof: "P=/=NP" and counter it with shrewd humanitarian based logic of ages grounded as much in science and cold physical studies as it is in morality).
*In polynomial time responses can be handled efficiently if the programmer considers possibilities before they occur. Good point, just because something you were prepared for occurs does not mean you are the cause.--Martin Musatov Critique my method to this statement as it satisfies an axiom to prove P==NP.
*Critique my approach in Polynomial time to what we need to get P==NP published to claim: The Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) of Cambridge, Massachusetts has named seven "Millennium Prize Problems." The Scientific Advisory Board of CMI (SAB) selected these problems, focusing on important classic questions that have resisted solution over the years. The Board of Directors of CMI designated a $7 million prize fund for the solution to these problems, with $1 million allocated to each. The Directors of CMI, and no other persons or body, have the authority to authorize payment from this fund or to modify or interpret these stipulations. The Board of Directors of CMI makes all mathematical decisions for CMI, upon the recommendation of its SAB.
The SAB of CMI will consider a proposed solution to a Millennium Prize Problem if it is a complete mathematical solution to one of the problems. (In the case that someone discovers a mathematical counterexample, rather than a proof, the question will be considered separately as described below.) A proposed solution to one of the Millennium Prize Problems may not be submitted directly to CMI for consideration.
Before consideration, a proposed solution must be published in a refereed mathematics publication of worldwide repute (or such other form as the SAB shall determine qualifies), and it must also have general acceptance in the mathematics community two years after. Following this two-year waiting period, the SAB will decide whether a solution merits detailed consideration. In the affirmative case, the SAB will constitute a special advisory committee, which will include (a) at least one SAB member and (b) at least two non-SAB members who are experts in the area of the problem. The SAB will seek advice to determine potential non-SAB members who are internationally-recognized mathematical experts in the area of the problem. As part of this procedure, each component of a proposed solution under consideration shall be verified by one or more members of this special advisory committee.
The special advisory committee will report within a reasonable time to the SAB. Based on this report and possible further investigation, the SAB will make a recommendation to the Directors. The SAB may recommend the award of a prize to one person. The SAB may recommend that a particular prize be divided among multiple solvers of a problem or their heirs. The SAB will pay special attention to the question of whether a prize solution depends crucially on insights published prior to the solution under consideration. The SAB may (but need not) recommend recognition of such prior work in the prize citation, and it may (but need not) recommend the inclusion of the author of prior work in the award.
If the SAB cannot come to a clear decision about the correctness of a solution to a problem, its attribution, or the appropriateness of an award, the SAB may recommend that no prize be awarded for a particular problem. If new information comes to light, the SAB may (but will not necessarily) reconsider a negative decision to recommend a prize for a proposed solution, but only after an additional two-year waiting period following the time that the new information comes to light. The SAB has the sole authority to make recommendations to the Directors of the CMI concerning the appropriateness of any award and the validity of any claim to the CMI Millennium Prize.
In the case of the P versus NP problem and the Navier-Stokes problem, the SAB will consider the award of the Millennium Prize for deciding the question in either direction. In the case of the other problems if a counterexample is proposed, the SAB will consider this counterexample after publication and the same two-year waiting period as for a proposed solution will apply. If, in the opinion of the SAB, the counterexample effectively resolves the problem then the SAB may recommend the award of the Prize. If the counterexample shows that the original problem survives after reformulation or elimination of some special case, then the SAB may recommend that a small prize be awarded to the author. The money for this prize will not be taken from the Millennium Prize Problem fund, but from other CMI funds.
Any person who is not a disqualified person (as that term is defined in section 4946 of the Internal Revenue Code) in connection with the Institute, or a then serving member of the SAB, may receive the Millennium Prize.
All decision-making procedures concerning the CMI Millennium Prize Problems are private. This includes the deliberations or recommendations of any person or persons CMI has used to obtain advice on this question. No records of these deliberations or related correspondence may be made public without the prior approval of the Directors, the SAB, and all other living persons involved, unless fifty years time have elapsed after the event in question.
Please send inquiries regarding the Millennium Prize Problems to email@example.com.
--Also, and this is important: if there is anything you see a vulnerability in my proof that makes it look like what I said is not true, or needs clarifying, perhaps maybe to people who are always nay saying, pointing a finger and exclaiming, "You're wrong, here's why!", please tell me: "For this to be true, this has to be true." "You have accomplished this, so the next step is to do this."
Here are M.I.T.'s accessibility report card: (these are for critiques of proof and ongoing discovery utilizes them). I have a little niece who is hearing impaired and she is my absolute angel. So this is an important one to me.
Explanation for Rating Current location within the site is shown clearly Link to the site's main page is clearly identified Major/important parts of the site are directly accessible from the main page Site map is provided for a large, complex site Easy to use Search function is provided, as needed Functionality
Explanation for Rating Site accommodates novice to expert users Functions are clearly labeled Essential functions are available without leaving the site Plug-ins are used only if they add value User Control
Explanation for Rating Site reflects user's workflow User can cancel any operation Clear exit point is provided on every page Per-page size is less than 50K, to accommodate slow connections All appropriate browsers are supported Language and Content
Explanation for Rating Important information and tasks are given prominence Information of low relevance or rarely used information is not included Related information or tasks are grouped: - on the same page or menu - in the same area within a page Language is simple, without jargon Paragraphs are brief Links are concise, expressive, and visible--not buried in text Terms are defined Online Help and User Guides
Explanation for Rating Site is designed to require minimal help and instructions Help and instructions, if needed, are easily accessible System and User Feedback
Explanation for Rating It is always clear what is happening on the site -- visual hints, etc. Users can receive email feedback if necessary Users can give feedback via email or a feedback form Confirmation screen is provided for form submittal All system feedback is timely Users are informed if a plug-in or browser version is required Each page includes a "last updated" date Web Accessibility W3C's Tools, Checklist, and Guidelines
Explanation for Rating Site follows current web standards; HTML 4.0, Cascading Style Sheets (CSS1) Cascading Style Sheets are used for layout and style where possible Images and animations The attribute ALT= is used for images, animations, and other objects Image maps Site uses client-side map and text for hotspots Multimedia Site provides captioning and transcripts of audio and descriptions of video Web versions of PDF documents are provided Link labels make sense when read out of context; site avoids such link names as "click here" Page organization Accomplished with headings, lists, and consistent structure Graphs and charts Summaries are provided for graphs and charts, or the LONGDESC attribute is used Scripts, applets, & plug-ins Alternative content is provided for scripts, applets, and plug-ins in case these active features are inaccessible or unsupported Frames For frames pages, site includes the NOFRAMES option and meaningful titles Tables Line-by-line reading of tables is sensible, and summaries are included where possible Validation Site has been validated using the W3C's HTML Validation Service and the Bobby Accessibility Checker Site has been tested on a variety of platforms (UNIX, Windows, Mac) and browsers (Netscape 3, 4, 6, 7; IE 5, 6; lynx) Consistency
Explanation for Rating The same word or phrase is used consistently to describe an item Link reflects the title of the page to which it refers Browser page title is meaningful and reflects main page heading Error Prevention and Correction
Explanation for Rating Users can rely on recognition, not memory, for successful use of the site Site tolerates a reasonable variety of user actions Site provides concise instructions for user actions, including entry format Error messages are visible, not hidden Error messages are in plain language Error messages describe actions to remedy a problem Error messages provide a clear exit point Error messages provide contact details for assistance Architectural and Visual Clarity
Explanation for Rating Site is organized from the user's perspective Site is easily scannable for organization and meaning Site design and layout is straightforward and concise Site design and layout are redundant only when required for user productivity White space is sufficient; pages are not too dense Unnecessary animation is avoided Colors used for visited and unvisited links are easily seen and understood Bold and italic text is used sparingly
Come to me with challenges and solutions which are reproducible to stride towards instead of loathing disproofs based on the certainty of Quantum Computers based largely on opinions of those not
Also if you think this thing is ready please critique my approach to contacting/involving Stephen Arthur Cook in this proof. I am making plans to contact other people who would like to join the "Cause for Truth!" P==NP campaign, so any critical comments to energize the troops. (oh, in case I forget, here is: sacook [at] cs [dot] toronto [dot] edu.
MARTIN M. MUSATOV: m[dot]mm[at]vzw[dot]blackberry[dot]net