|
|
 | | From: | tcne | | Subject: | Follow-up | | Date: | 19 Jan 2005 21:26:51 -0800 |
|
|
 | This thread would contain a number of open letters and is intended for
opinions of relevant people with relevant contents.
Other personal opinions of the highest value can never be wasted but
can surely find another spot in this vast space-time.
===================================
In addition, here is a brief note for Daniel and Gerhard:
Thank you very much for the effort toward a comprehensive coverage of
the history and status of the issue at:
http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm
lumping truth and everything together.
I am quite sure you are aware of the 'unconventional' part in the
published version of the paper. However, I here make it explicitly
clear that the proof of P != NP does not depend on it. Besides, one
major purpose of it being there has absolutely nothing to do with
mathematics! I think you may fare better making your understanding of
it, if any, explicit.
I would like to further clarify something. Any consequences from it
being in the paper are the sole responsibility of the author. Neither
the program chair nor the conference committee nor the referee(s)
should be blamed in any slight way for it. As a matter of fact, it was
not in the version submitted for review. The editor shares no blame,
either.
Again, one reason for it was TOTALLY UNRELATED TO MATH. I do not quite
know if, --- with reference to A. E. --- in order to have a bit of
hope, making it look insane is of help. :)
As a side note, Szabo was invoked not because we absolutely needed it.
It was there to impress, showing I could actually have reference in my
paper! :)
If you are really serious, I have one recommendation. NP-complete is
regarded to be one of the most important theoretical achievements in
complexity theory. It would be a great waste to not see it put to some
real use. Therefore, for any of the proofs that claim P = NP, try
applying the completeness polytime translation and show that the
analogy (given about the fractured primes) is polytime solvable.
I think you are responsible people and know that consistent
mathematics never allows conflicting claims to be both valid (unless
it is your genuine purpose to have both together indiscriminately).
Regards,
TCNE
P.S.
If you have anything to say about the purpose of your page, the
reference to my paper, or anything else, please kindly respond to the
post in sci.math.
|
|
| | From: | tcne | | Subject: | Re: Follow-up | | Date: | 20 Jan 2005 10:07:13 -0800 |
|
|
| Dear Professor Stewart:
There has been no reply from you on the NP-equals-coNP proof I sent you
about a year ago.
Even though a year is really a short time (by Planck's measure of
progress), it should be long enough for reading a simple proof of fewer
than 10 pages. I can not help wondering what is holding things up.
Maybe, the proof involved new, counter-intuitive theories? But I do not
think so. As far as proving NP = coNP is concerned, it only touched
basic logic and used only elementary mathematical treatment. Care was
exercised to use only what you and everybody else were using,
preserving whatever mathematical truth there was or wasn't.
Had you had a problem with any 'unconventional' part in the proof, you
surely did not ask a single question, and the proof most obviously does
not have to depend on the 'unconventionality', either.
You did take time to write about Minesweeper for CMI, which I can
hardly take as an indication of lack of interest. Besides, the reason
for my initial writing to you as the primary recipient was given in
that message with the allusion to your 'Paradox Lost'.
There is no way, unless you physically demonstrate, that I can be
convinced that a simple piece of mathematical truth which you yourself
regard as highly important is to be totally ignored.
I am confident that Ian Parberry is right (with a personal
generalization): "not one of us". It may be easy to show that any
'system', or any 'portion' of it, can not see its own purpose and I
certainly can not explain the ultimate reason why it had to be through
any particular person to reveal the little truth about P != NP. I
firmly believe, with what we have seen, that it would be exactly the
same for the revelation through anybody. However, once embarked on it,
there is no turning back. I am very, very sorry.
Did I happen to offend you with anything in that message? I said what I
know and believe to be true. If truth could offend, I had no regret,
have none. Never will.
I mentioned I would move on and I would (when this is out of the way)
in settling P != NP, which I believe is also regarded by the math
community as a most important problem in contemporary mathematics. My
content in merely seeing the truth faded away; my goal is to have it in
our physical vocabulary of truth.
I never believed that Anonymous1 of Bill's poll could be both serious
and true. I did not plan to waste my life that way, but I can. The
only problem I see is that mathematics has never in its entire history
been insulted this profoundly with both words and silence. But I am
glad that the decision of making it public had not happened years
earlier. It surely could consume a longer 'rest of his life'.
Regards,
TCNE
P.S.
Please kindly respond, if you would, to this open letter posted in
sci.math.
|
|
| | From: | Bryan Olson | | Subject: | Re: Follow-up | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:09:16 GMT |
|
|
| tcne wrote:
> Dear Professor Stewart:
>
> There has been no reply from you on the NP-equals-coNP proof I sent you
> about a year ago.
[...]
> Please kindly respond, if you would, to this open letter posted in
> sci.math.
Professor Stewart:
I think you are taking the right approach. This guy has been
posting his ludicrous arguments on complexity for quite some
years. None of them got as far as understanding the questions.
He's received careful explanations of where he went wrong, but
he simply rephrases the same misunderstanding.
--
--Bryan
|
|
|
