Understanding Godel is not God is equally important. Understanding logic is more important.
David C. Ullrich wrote: > On Sat, 9 May 2009 14:19:50 -0700 (PDT), Martin Musatov > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > >On May 9, 12:15?pm, Mariano Su?rez-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 > > > >do you have the time to help me>?9 12:15:13 -0700 (PDT) > >Local: Sat, May 9 2009 12:15 pm > > If you want help you have to make a readable copy of the > proof available. > > > David C. Ullrich > > "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. > That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to." > (John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads." > in sci.logic.)