Thread: t-shirt

Originally Posted by Mario F.

The sentence is: "Thus I equal the solution to the verification of that solution." And under the concept of faith, I'm confused what there is to explain that I haven't already. What is that you don't understand?

How do you verify your faith, if not by the very formulation of the faith itself?

I can understand that part, but then from what I understand, your conclusion does not follow. How do you manage to conclude P = NP from a flawed proof of P != NP? (EDIT: Or are you saying that from a contradiction, we can derive anything... but there is no clear contradiction since this is an open problem, and even if there was, "anything" includes supporting P != NP.)

Originally Posted by Mario F.

No. We just don't know yet. It hasn't be proven yet. We can feel more inclined that way, we may accept that as the most probable answer. But we don't know yet. And trying to pretend we know is not science.

I think Yarin was trying to be pedantic about the difference in rigour in mathematical proofs and scientific theories.

Originally Posted by laserlight

I can understand that part, but then from what I understand, your conclusion does not follow. How do you manage to conclude P = NP from a flawed proof of P != NP?

Ah, I think I can understand the source of our confusion, now.

I'm not concluding that proves P = NP. I'm merely saying that by their own admission of faith they are in fact making their case for P = NP. Because both the solution and the verification of that solution become equal in complexity.