Re: Paper - impossible to prove P=?NP

From: tcne (tcne1837_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/01/03 

Date: 30 Sep 2003 21:43:46 -0700

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.

    I think this has to be made more 'precise'.

    The claimant has the obligation to give a convincing account, void
of ambiguity, conforming to well-defined notions, etc.

    The validater can not be one who does not validate (but just
claims that he did). He may validate to his heart's content or fail to
validate to his satisfaction of any degree. Then there are responsible
and serious things he can do. He can declare that he does not have the
ability to validate. He can declare the proof being validated to be
correct. He can declare it to be invalid. He can even keep silent (or
more politely: shut up :)).

    If he declares it invalid, then he is also by default under the
obligation to convince, without ambiguity, etc., why it is not valid.
He must show a gap that is not filled, or a proof step that is wrong
(leading to contradiction), or a definition not well-defined, etc.
There is no escape here either.

    In addition, if by the definitions and argument (used by the
validater himself), the validater is shown to contradict himself, then
he can do a couple of things. He can pretend he has become deaf and
mute. He can continue contradicting himself (and further). He can
admit his fallacy and declare (that version of) his invalidation of
the proof does not stand. He can be a liar or he can be an honest,
serious, respectable person (regardless of how much math he has).

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Boolean variable not holding state
    ... means you can only refer to that variable inside that routine. ... To declare a variable that can be used by all routines within ... about the variable validate. ... Even with Option Explicit the sub does not generate any error. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)
  • Re: Boolean variable not holding state
    ... you can only refer to that variable inside that routine. ... To declare a variable that can be used by all routines within the ... Even with Option Explicit the sub does not generate any error. ... implicitly defined variant validate in the function by treating it ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)
  • Re: Boolean variable not holding state
    ... you can only refer to that variable inside that routine. ... To declare a variable that can be used by all routines within the ... realized that your sub validateAccount knew nothing about the ... implicitly defined variant validate in the function by treating it ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)
  • Re: Boolean variable not holding state
    ... You've declared validate inside of btnSaveRecord_Click. ... only refer to that variable inside that routine. ... To declare a variable that can be used by all routines within the module, ... I have a form that calls another sub to validate text boxes. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)
  • Re: validate XML with DTD and Xerces: Non-whitespace characters
    ... > as mentioned above I'd like to validate a simple XML-document with a ... If you want standalone validation with a DTD, ... The name you declare in the Document Type Declaration must be the ...
    (comp.text.xml)