Deolalikar P vs NP paper: Difference between revisions
From Polymath Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
=== Other === | === Other === | ||
* [http://twitter.com/fortnow/statuses/20673954168 Twitter] Lance Fortnow - August 8 2010 | * [http://twitter.com/fortnow/statuses/20673954168 Twitter] Lance Fortnow, August 8 2010 | ||
* [http://www.google.com/buzz/114134834346472219368/1vfSCPtRQZf/Vinay-Deolaikar-recently-released-a-102-page Google Buzz] Terence Tao | * [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1585850 P ≠ NP] Hacker News, August 8 2010 | ||
* [http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/08/08/226227/Claimed-Proof-That-P--NP Claimed Proof That P != NP] Slashdot, August 8 2010 | |||
* [http://www.google.com/buzz/114134834346472219368/1vfSCPtRQZf/Vinay-Deolaikar-recently-released-a-102-page Google Buzz] Terence Tao, August 9 2010 | |||
Additions to the above list of links are of course very welcome. | |||
== Timeline == | == Timeline == |
Revision as of 23:54, 9 August 2010
Note: This is currently an UNOFFICIAL page on Deolalikar's P!=NP paper, and is not yet affiliated with a Polymath project.
The paper
- Vinay Deolalikar's web page
- First draft (date?)
- Second draft (date?)
Proof strategy
(Excerpted from this comment of Ken Regan.)
Deolalikar has constructed a vocabulary V such that:
- Satisfiability of a k-CNF formula can be expressed by NP-queries over V—in particular, by an NP-query Q over V that ties in to algorithmic properties.
- All P-queries over V can be expressed by FO+LFP formulas over V.
- NP = P implies Q is expressible by an LFP+FO formula over V.
- If Q is expressible by an LFP formula over V, then by the algorithmic tie-in, we get a certain kind of polynomial-time LFP-based algorithm.
- Such an algorithm, however, contradicts known statistical properties of randomized k-SAT when k >= 9.
Possible issues
Issues with LFP
There appear to be three issues related to the use of the characterization of P in terms of first order logic, an ordering and a least fixed point operator. All of these are discussed in the Lipton/Regan post
- Is the lack of ordering in the logical structures used to define the LFP structure a problem ? On the surface, it appears to be, since it is not known whether FO(LFP) can be used to characterize P without ordering.
- The paper requires that a certain predicate in the FO(LFP) formula be unary, and forces this by expanding neighborhoods and constructing k-tuples of parameters to act as single parameters. It is not clear how this affects the arguments about the propagation of local neighborhoods.
- Does the logical vocabulary created to express the LFP operation suffice to capture all P-time operations ?
Issues with d1RSP
Barriers
Any P vs NP proof must deal with the three known barriers described below. The concerns around this paper have not yet reached this stage yet.
Relativization
Natural proofs
Algebraization
Terminology
- Least fixed point (LFP)
Online reactions
Theory blogs
- P ≠ NP Greg Baker, Greg and Kat’s blog, August 7 2010
- A proof that P is not equal to NP? Richard Lipton, Godel's lost letter and P=NP, August 8 2010
- On the Deolalikar proof: Crowdsourcing the discussion ? Suresh Venkatasubramanian, The Geomblog, August 9 2010
- Putting my money where my mouth isn’t Scott Aaronson, Shtetl-Optimized, August 9 2010
- That P ne NP proof- whats up with that? Bill Gasarch, Computational Complexity, August 9 2010
- Issues In The Proof That P≠NP Richard Lipton and Ken Regan, Godel's lost letter and P=NP, August 9 2010
Other
- Twitter Lance Fortnow, August 8 2010
- P ≠ NP Hacker News, August 8 2010
- Claimed Proof That P != NP Slashdot, August 8 2010
- Google Buzz Terence Tao, August 9 2010
Additions to the above list of links are of course very welcome.