-
I am reading essentials of programming languages and SICP.
Really enjoying it so far. Want to understand the underlying concepts behind programming languages in more depth and in turn improve my search engine.
-
I am reading essentials of programming languages and SICP.
Really enjoying it so far. Want to understand the underlying concepts behind programming languages in more depth and in turn improve my search engine.
Can someone smarter than me (i.e. anyone else here) tell me if this is likely to be correct? Maybe even give an understandable-to-a-relatively-educated-layman explanation?
It’s not written by a crank (the author is actually very well regarded in the field), and it’s an approach that avoids the most obvious pitfalls (relativization, say) which you’d expect, from someone who knows the field. It’s not immediately clear to me how this solution proposes to avoid algebrization, but I’m a certified idiot about this stuff so that may obviously not apply to someone with a better grasp of it.
Is it likely correct? There’ve been many, many serious attempts over the years, all of which have failed despite the best efforts of those involved. Anything is possible, though, and at the very least we may learn something novel from this attempt.
I’m unable to find it, but 2 years ago I found a very detailed page discussing a lot of proof attempts and not only evaluating why they failed, but also how they brought science forward. I liked it for the very respectful tone of “yes, it was a flawed attempt, but we learned something”.
I like that the P vs. NP problem is one of the rare pockets of science where constant public failure is still a reality and good.
If you look at the discussions on reddit, most people think it’s likely to be a faulty proof, but the guy is credible enough to not dismiss the paper outright.