# Re: P = NP paper

**From:** Louis Scheffer (*lou_at_cadence.com*)

**Date:** 11/05/04

**Next message:**Anton Stiglic: "Re: Koblitz and Menezes: 'Another Look at "Provable Security"'"**Previous message:**Timo Johansson: "Re: Cryptanalysis - unknown algorithm"**In reply to:**mechmech: "Re: P = NP paper"**Next in thread:**Scott Contini: "Re: P = NP paper"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Date: 5 Nov 2004 08:14:17 -0700

"mechmech" <bbb@ccc.com> writes:

*>"Peter Fairbrother" <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
*

*>news:BDB06288.72456%zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk...
*

*>> Allan Herriman wrote:
*

*>>
*

*>> I expect he's serious, but I doubt he's right. However, I haven't read the
*

*>> paper. I can't get the paper to open, and the 45MB of programs are in some
*

*>> unusual format I don't want to think about. Not encouraging signs.
*

*>>
*

*>If you have not read the paper and you don't want to think about his unusual
*

*>code format, how did you come to the conclusion that " you doubt he is
*

*>right". Either you prove him wrong or you let other do it and you read about
*

*>it in the thread.
*

It's possible to doubt he is right from nothing but the title of the paper.

"P = NP: Linear Programming Formulation of the Traveling Salesman Problem".

This exact approach has been tried *many* times, and always failed.

For example, in 1987 a professor did exactly the same, starting with a

Hamiltonian cycle problem.

At that time, 17 years ago, Bob Silverman (who's a professional in this and

related areas) replied:

"I'm getting tired of hearing about P=NP proofs. It reminds me too much of

the many crackpots from previous generations who tried to 'square the circle'

or 'trisect a general angle' with straightedge and compass. All of the P=NP

proofs reported so far have the same flaw: They try to formulate an NP problem

as a linear program but ALL wind up requiring an exponential number of

variables in the size of the problem instance."

Lou Scheffer

**Next message:**Anton Stiglic: "Re: Koblitz and Menezes: 'Another Look at "Provable Security"'"**Previous message:**Timo Johansson: "Re: Cryptanalysis - unknown algorithm"**In reply to:**mechmech: "Re: P = NP paper"**Next in thread:**Scott Contini: "Re: P = NP paper"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]