On May 9, 6:00 am, A N Niel <ann...@nym.alias.net.invalid> wrote: > In article > <b36eb4ca-cbed-41b3-b369-4b0f559a1...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > 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... > > 1468147288IdV-15212827115758210PDF_HI0001.pdf > > > 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. > > > Thank you, > > > Martin Musatov > > m[dot]mm[at]vzw[dot]blackberry[dot]net. > > The mathematics formulas in that PDF are unintelligible. Was that done > by you, or bungled by IMAJAM (or CERN) when it was put on-line?
It was done by me the uploading was intentional and experimental and deliberate as to the current state. Each step along the way was not. i.e. the parsing from Google docs and the side left margin vertical numbering done by my upload at Oxford where just happenstance but they intrigued be by the uniqueness of the nature of the result. How does the machine know in the randomness of everything against these equations to count to 10 at very specific intervals against equations. That sounds like A.I. to me. Or could there be something more to this? Could there be a more profound less worldly cause?
