https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03486.pd f There is a new proof

File: 1503037247982.png (445KB, 664x551px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 664x551px

w-what does it say?

>>9129255

This was already found out to be false last week, not exactly new.

>>9129308
Is there a link?

>>9129255
https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/38803/is-norbert-blums-2017-proof-that-p-ne-np-correct/38832

It's wrong, as we all already knew.

>>9129298
They were able to prove that [math] \log(p) = \log(p) + \log(n) [/math]. Therefore [math] \log(p) = \log(np) [/math] and then exponentiated both sides.

>>9129320
Are you proud of that joke?

>>9129317
>the mistake is just at the end

Phew man. I was worrying that maybe the mistake was really early and then the poor author went on to write an entire paper based on a mistake. As it stands all before Theorem 6 may be correct, so the author got 5 theorems and 4 lemmas out into the world.

Please send him the "an effort was made" millenium prize stamp with his million monopoly dollars.

>>9129327
Well, lets just say that if [math] P = \{ \text{My jokes about math} \} [/math] and [math] NP = \{ \text{My jokes about math that I'm not proud of} \} [/math] then it is a still an open problem whether or not [math] P = NP [/math]

>>9129332
Better but still shit

File: 1503682078658.png (113KB, 385x306px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 385x306px

>mfw P = NP

>>9129320
My nigga