Re: Paper - impossible to prove P=?NP

From: Bill Unruh (unruh_at_string.physics.ubc.ca)
Date: 09/30/03 

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:10:47 +0000 (UTC)

cafeinst@msn.com (Craig Feinstein) writes:

]He quoted lines from my proof. And then he said that the proof is
]nonsense without giving any reason. If that is the scientific method,

He said that your arguments which took you from one claim to the other
were nonesense.

]then science is no more than witchcraft. The burden of proof is
]certainly on the author. But there is a responsibility of the reader
]too, to give a reasonable critique if he chooses to give a critique.
]He doesn't have to believe it, but if he is going to publicly say it
]is wrong, then he must back it up.

He did. He said that your argument tying one statement to the other did
not work.

]Moreover, extraordinary claims do not require "extraordinary"
]justification. They only require justification. Futhermore, my claim

Yes, they do. By extraordinary, read extraordinariy careful. You must
justify each and every step you make.

]that p != np is not extraordinary. If I were to claim the opposite,
]then it would be.

The claim that you have a proof for p!+np IS extraordinary. Many many
very very bright people have worked on this an failed. You claim in 5
pages or so to have a proof. That is extraordinary.

]I'm open to critism of my paper and welcome feedback which pokes holes
]in it as long as they are backed up. That way we all learn.

You must justify all of the steps. You cannot assume anything or use
terms like obvious, clear, etc.

]Craig

]daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) wrote in message news:<blaige$1gla$1@agate.berkeley.edu>...
]> Craig Feinstein wrote:
]> >Bryan, if you don't think that my paper is correct, then you can't
]> >make a statement like you made without backing it up, just as I cannot
]> >make a statement that p != np without backing it up.
]>
]> Wrong, on two counts.
]>
]> 1. Bryan did back up his statements.
]>
]> 2. The burden of proof is on the person claiming any new result,
]> not on the person trying to validate whether the claim is accurate.
]> (You might not like that, but that's how we do mathematics.)
]> Moreover, extraordinary claims require extraordinary justification,
]> and your claims certainly count as extraordinary.