I asked: Proof verification: $P \neq NP$ and somebody told me that I should post it on https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/
Is he right?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
-
3$\begingroup$ Related meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/11902/… $\endgroup$– Willie Wong ModCommented Dec 5, 2013 at 8:26
Add a comment
|
5 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
You can post it wherever you want to, but a much, much better approach is to find someone who knows something about the topic and have her sit down with you and point out to you all the mistakes you have made, and suggest to you some books you could read to get a better understanding of the problem.
ADDED in view of comment by OP: It is, indeed, difficult for those who are "not in the academy" to get useful pointers for improving their understanding of mathematics. I would suggest that instead of starting with the biggest problems in mathematics, you start with the smallest. See whether you can solve the exercises in a textbook on computability theory, or, say, elementary number theory. If you can't do this, you know what you have to do; learn those topics first, before you even think about the big problems.
If/when you can work your way through the undergraduate texts in mathematics and computer science, then pick out some small unsolved problems. If you solve one, write it up, and send it to a journal. If you solve enough small problems, you will build up a reputation as a serious researcher, and those in the academy will pay attention when you announce that you have made progress on a big problem.
But start small. The people who have solved the big problems in the past --- these are people who worked their way up to the big problems, by solving dozens, hundreds, thousands of small problems first. I think that's the way to go.
answered Dec 5, 2013 at 3:12
-
$\begingroup$ This is a great idea. Unfortunately I am not in the academy, and I do not know any person who do this for me. Here is my only place that I can use to find the answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 5, 2013 at 7:55
-
$\begingroup$ I endorse the ADDED part. Until a century ago, practically all mathematicians were amateurs: Either they supported themselves at another career, or were "men of leisure" not needing to generate income. $\endgroup$– GEdgarCommented Dec 6, 2013 at 14:46
-
2$\begingroup$ we have been working with B. in a CS chat room for weeks, while he has participated in some nontrivial exercises that might be challenging to many undergraduates & increased his knowledge substantially in a short time, he generally doesnt seem willing to read anything outside of what is posted on internet sites.... $\endgroup$– vznCommented Dec 7, 2013 at 22:35
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
10
That site is for CS researchers, so probably your question will be closed there rather fast.
Questions of the form «I have solved the immensely famous problem X, please check my 10 line proof» are off-topic in professional sites, really.
answered Dec 4, 2013 at 18:34
-
5$\begingroup$ I think they are off topic for this site as well. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2013 at 19:28
-
$\begingroup$ @CarlMummert Who can help me than? I want to know if my proof is valid or not. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2013 at 20:04
-
4$\begingroup$ @Babibu It is not. It is short and elementary and claims to prove a millenium problem. Also, it was already pointed out to you in the question itself that one of your steps is wrong. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2013 at 20:10
-
1$\begingroup$ @TobiasKildetoft I asked VZN in chat what did he meant because I didn't understood him. Also you can't claim that is not true just because it's to short. Such claim is not acceptable. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2013 at 20:13
-
8$\begingroup$ @Babibu For a problem such as this it is a heuristic that is sufficiently good that I have no problems at all employing it as if it were a proof. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2013 at 20:15
-
1$\begingroup$ @TobiasKildetoft Than you understand why I am no accepting it. As you said it's not a proof. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2013 at 21:44
-
4$\begingroup$ @Babibu Scott H.'s answer is not of the form "This is too simple to prove this famous problem". He shows you exactly what's wrong with your attempted proof. $\endgroup$– user98602Commented Dec 5, 2013 at 5:14
-
2$\begingroup$ Unless you're saying that you don't accept that your attempted proof is likely wrong off the bat, which is just silly. "Many, many brilliant people have failed to prove this yet" is a good reason to expect your proof is not correct, because it's likely they'd already thought of that line of approach... $\endgroup$– user98602Commented Dec 5, 2013 at 5:16
-
1$\begingroup$ @Mike Pay attention to times, Scott H.'s answer was not there, when I wrote this comment. Also I do not accept his answer from the reasons I wrote in my comment to his answer. "Many, many brilliant people have failed to prove this yet" is not an answer that I expect. I don't think that any one will except such an answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 5, 2013 at 7:54
-
3$\begingroup$ Perhaps geomblog.blogspot.com.au/2004/04/meta-proof.html is relevant. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2013 at 1:05
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
No, I do not think that this question is on-topic for this site. The OP does not have much history here, so I am going on my general experience with proposed solutions to famous open problems such as P=NP that are posted on the internet. This answer does not refer to the OP in particular.
Too often, the people who produce these flawed proofs lack the experience to appreciate when their method is fundamentally flawed, and continue producing minor variations, which they re-post. As people begin to get frustrated, the tone of the discussion degenerates. The result is embarrassing for everyone, and takes time from more productive discussions.
So, for this special class of problems, I think that a realistic approach is necessary. By closing proposed proofs of famous conjectures, the chance we will miss a correct proof is extremely low. The chance that we simply avoid a protracted argument and frustration is far higher. Based on my experience with how these things usually go, I am willing to take that chance.
At the same time, I think it would be good to have a prepared statement that we could link to, so that we can explain to posters why their question is not suitable for this site. That statement could point out what someone should do if they think that have a proof of a famous conjecture.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
There is no genuine question here. The user is well aware that these are off-topic on cstheory as we have told the user a number of times (and the last time quite explicitly)
discussing the correctness of unpublished claimed solutions to famous open problems like P vs. NP is not welcome on cstheory.
-
$\begingroup$ You misunderstood the question. The question is in the title. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 5, 2013 at 17:30
-
7$\begingroup$ Kaveh understood the question perfectly --- the question in the body. The body is where the question belongs, not the title. If the question in the body is not the question you want to ask, please edit your question accordingly. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 5, 2013 at 23:05
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
I believe this sort of question is on-topic for this site. It is about mathematics. It shows effort. It inherently provides context. However, I think some humility is in order when asking such questions. Someone just starting to study such a deep problem who believes zie has found a proof might be better served by asking what zie did wrong rather than whether others can verify zir proof is correct. In the highly unlikely event that someone should post a correct proof here, that will likely be recognized quite quickly and the modesty of the question will not limit the accolades.
-
8$\begingroup$ I hope zis does not catch on this zite... $\endgroup$– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez ModCommented Dec 5, 2013 at 5:34
-
2$\begingroup$ @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez, do you have a comment about my answer, or only about my intentional choice of language? $\endgroup$– dfeuerCommented Dec 5, 2013 at 5:50
-
$\begingroup$ Just because the chances for my proof to be correct is extremely small, does not prove its incorrectness and there for: "what zie did wrong" is not appropriate title. I think that studding P vs NP problem should be encouraged, most of the people here just trying to depress me. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 5, 2013 at 8:00
-
5$\begingroup$ @Babibu, your proof is wrong, as has already been explained to you. There have been many proofs (hundreds? thousands?) that $\mathrm P \ne \mathrm{NP}$, all of them wrong. I was suggesting extreme humility as a way to avoid sounding like a crank. $\endgroup$– dfeuerCommented Dec 5, 2013 at 8:11