Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@DTO.TUDelft.NL> writes:
> Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > >> email@example.com (Victor Eijkhout) writes: >> >>>Martin Musatov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>> >>>>How does that have to do with whether or not my proof is correct? >>> >>>In theory it shouldn't. In practice, your use of defective products >>>makes it impossible to read, and therefore assess, your proof. >> >> I'm pretty sure that this whole thread is a fairly amusing troll. >> >> In fact, I think that putting up a purposely unreadable paper and >> inviting comments (while pretending that the paper is clearly >> presented) is pretty damned clever. > > Always be prepared for the impossible, though.
Surely it is not impossible that P=NP will be proved. It is extremely unlikely, but not impossible, that the proof will be announced on sci.math.
It is pretty damned obvious that Martin is just funning. After all, his first post on the topic was a *repost* of someone else's April Fool's joke from 1999.
-- "[T]he Cantorian pseudomathematicians are defending a religion, and they really can't see what monsters they have become. What the Cantorians are doing is nothing less than a crime against humanity. What they are doing is evil." -- David Petry, victim.