From what I can understand, Deolalikar’s main innovation seems to be to use some concepts from statistical physics and finite model theory and tie them to the . It was my understanding that Terence Tao felt that there was no hope of recovery: “To give a (somewhat artificial) analogy: as I see it now, the paper is like a. Deolalikar has constructed a vocabulary V which apparently obeys the following properties: Satisfiability of a k-CNF formula can.
| Author: | Ararg Tajinn |
| Country: | Nepal |
| Language: | English (Spanish) |
| Genre: | Medical |
| Published (Last): | 8 December 2007 |
| Pages: | 406 |
| PDF File Size: | 20.94 Mb |
| ePub File Size: | 13.77 Mb |
| ISBN: | 357-5-33887-256-7 |
| Downloads: | 12003 |
| Price: | Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] |
| Uploader: | Arashizshura |
This definition seems to have same problems as circuit complexity approach, which is natural proofs. It would allow one to test the whole strategy in a straightforward way. This, however, has never been proven.
Tim, my point was only that Deolalikar is using, in his reasoning, the simple fact that if k-SAT is in P, one can decide, given a partial assignment s, whether a satisfying solution y extending s exists. In contrast, 9-SAT onwards do enter the d1RSB phase, and in the absence of properties such as linearity, it is not possible to specify the joint distribution of the covariates in this phase with independent parameters.
However, this seems to have been caused by incorrectly amplifying oroof power of monadic LFP logic, and ends up proving far more structural control on solution spaces to P problems than one expects. I guess this difficulty was well known to the experts, but it is probably good to make it more explicit.
Specifically, the assignments to the variables that are computed by the LFP have nothing to do with their order. Many thought V Vinay has taken permanent recluse from complexity theory. Communications of the ACM.
Deolalikar Responds To Issues About His P≠NP Proof
The reduction that Deolalikar proposes is standard but definitely does not preserve anything on which we can apply Hanf-Gaifman locality. Unless Neil is wrong, it seems that his points are very serious. I think everyone—mathematicians, scientists, and engineers alike—appreciates edolalikar only the strongest mathematical narratives can support multiple perspectives, and so it is our good fortune that apparently Vinay Deolalikar—to his very great credit—has gifted us with such a narrative.
However, if this were all there is, then the number of parameters would be proportional to number of clauses, so there is probably something else going on.
Isnt it also the case perhaps by a similar argument for all problems in NP? After rereading section 2, independent parameters appear to refer to how many values are oroof to describe the joint distribution. I could not attach that file with the present comment. But it turns out that there are an dellalikar number of equivalent NDTMs accepting the same inputs, and in each pgoof class, there are members with complicated solution space. You can guess what C is.
The integer factorization problem is the computational problem of determining the prime factorization of a given integer.
A revised version with added material should appear here this weekend. The current publication practices in TCS in my opinion falls short in this regard, and there seems to be no consensus in the TCS community how to remedy deolaliikar situation despite periodic attempts by various people to raise this issue — for example, Neal Koblitz in the AMS notices a couple of years ago.
While it is clearly true that the LFP formula itself would be order-invariant, this does not mean that each stage would. Typically such models assume that the computer is deterministic given the computer’s present state and any inputs, there is only one possible action that the computer might take and sequential it performs actions one after the other.
Somehow this particular paper spread very rapidly. They surprise because computation seem more powerful than we had anticipated or expected. Such proof would have to cover all classes of algorithms, like continuous global optimization. Then I gave you the problem instance:.
math – Explain the proof by Vinay Deolalikar that P != NP – Stack Overflow
If we can, than there might be something in prof approach. However, while developing these tools, it appears that Deolalikar has accidentally and incorrectly amplified the power of these tools from something that is too weak to establish this claim, to something that is far too strong for establishing this claim.
It is also possible that a proof would not lead directly to ;roof methods, perhaps if deolaliikar proof is non-constructiveor the size of the bounding polynomial is too big to be efficient in practice. No such ethical compunction exists in the case of this proof. This way we can represent a k-ary relation on A by a unary i. My current take is that if the answer on question 3 is positive, then the separation edolalikar be X!
But he gives lot of other background. It’s worth noting that with proofs, “the devil is in the detail”. The solution space can always be characterized by the formula, that is a linear number of parameters. There was considerable back and forth, with the number of indices growing.