Hi Raul arXiv is owned and operated by Cornell University. People post documents to arXiv that they want other people to see and hopefully read.
Researchers from all over the world contribute to this repository as a prelude to the peer review process for publication in traditional journals. arXiv contains a veritable treasure trove of… It is not peer reviewed. (in the official sense--it does draw feedback.) See: Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review | Nature > https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12786.epdf?referrer_access_token=-lPclZfnkhR6R0jwe6bPr9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N0riD38xm8AYAksdDNoSUjd8tGTIrxQo3pEONfA51ocEFhcS3r2XC-J_LVD9XxW_Rjo7njjBRfuRZns935RcVCZcNGOKTXm02PVu0TPyxge_er-iZobzDkrdtxScJy7NLSd2lQkTF77l6_Z7QWH8t7sIKg5aRrOOBAZaCvv-FIjvgYxmkNOsLkXhVxHDP4kzQFX_Ezng-9Ifg8hLaJ_KPm&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com > > <https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12786.epdf?referrer_access_token=-lPclZfnkhR6R0jwe6bPr9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N0riD38xm8AYAksdDNoSUjd8tGTIrxQo3pEONfA51ocEFhcS3r2XC-J_LVD9XxW_Rjo7njjBRfuRZns935RcVCZcNGOKTXm02PVu0TPyxge_er-iZobzDkrdtxScJy7NLSd2lQkTF77l6_Z7QWH8t7sIKg5aRrOOBAZaCvv-FIjvgYxmkNOsLkXhVxHDP4kzQFX_Ezng-9Ifg8hLaJ_KPm&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com> > A notable example of arXiv-only publication is Grigori Perelman's proof of > the geometrization conjecture > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrization_conjecture>, see arXiv:0211159 > <http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211159>, 0303109 > <http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0303109>, 0307245 > <http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0307245>. > In 2010 CMI offered Perelman the million-dollar reward for proving the > Poincaré conjecture. As he had done with the Fields Medal, Perelman refused > the prize. I was replying to Jose comment about possibly splitting a reward when I noted: >> In total, 116 of the bravest in their field have officially attempted to >> solve this mystery (though untold more computer scientists have posted >> would-be solutions to message boards and on sites like arXiv). To date, none >> of these proofs have officially been recognized by the mathematics community. arXiv is where Maymin’s paper resides—thus it is not recognized as a proof of P vs NP What I concluded was that Maymin’s paper was not recognized as a Proof of P vs NP since it was posted to arXiv and it was said that no proofs posted there have been recognized as a proof of P vs NP I didn’t say that it had been proven wrong. Meanwhile the paper itself only claims: > The result of this paper is that these two questions are linked, and > furthermore, the answers to the two questions must be the same: markets are > efficient if and only if P = NP. ...it is probably the case that markets are > not efficient. I think that I found flaws in the paper (how he used Turing reduction, whether he properly described market orders as a Turing machine and a Language accepted by such TM, other reasoning in his argument. It is a bit ridiculous that he proposes a type of order that doesn’t exist in the historic record. He also assumes that EMH is a N-complete problem, and he tries to demonstrate that markets are not efficient without a definition of efficient markets that is testable…) If any of my suspicions are true then his argument would be proven false. It is amazing how much you can learn by investigating claims even if the claims prove to be false. Many thanks, Donna Y [email protected] > On Aug 30, 2019, at 11:31 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:25 AM Donna Y <[email protected]> wrote: >> arXiv is where Maymin’s paper resides—thus it is not recognized as a proof >> of P vs NP > > Also, there's a mathematical distinction between "hasn't been proven, > despite tremendous effort" and "has been proven false" which is > difficult to express concisely. > > In colloquial english, the expressions we use to describe "hasn't been > proven despite tremendous effort" seem close to "hasn't been proven > because no one took it seriously", despite the obvious differences. > And, both of them we can and often do treat as "probably wrong", > though quantifying the associated probability tends to be wasted > effort. > > Or: even if his paper were published in a prestigious mathematical > journal, it still wouldn't be proof of P vs NP. > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
