On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Les Hughes wrote:
> silky wrote:
>>>
>>> I can see why you would
>>> disagree though Silky, after all, you have the brainpan of a stagecoach
>>> tilter. (Simpsons reference)
>>>
>>
>> Oh. there's no doubt that one day I'm going to have to accept my fate
>> and don
silky wrote:
I can see why you would
disagree though Silky, after all, you have the brainpan of a stagecoach
tilter. (Simpsons reference)
Oh. there's no doubt that one day I'm going to have to accept my fate
and don the appropriate hat and find a cart ...
I have no idea what a 'stagecoa
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Les Hughes wrote:
> silky wrote:
> >
> > I don't see what's good
> > about destroying someones work, though.
>
> It's fantastic when that happens... progress!
Progress is nice I agree; it would be "interesting" if it happened,
but it would just mean, as far as I'
silky wrote:
I don't see what's good
about destroying someones work, though.
It's fantastic when that happens... progress! I can see why you would
disagree though Silky, after all, you have the brainpan of a stagecoach
tilter. (Simpsons reference)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology <---
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Ian Thomas wrote:
> Exciting is definitely the word I would use.
>
> What's dull and pedestrian about destroying a great proportion of PhD theses
> and academic papers? If the proof is correct ...
It'd be significantly more than "exciting". I don't see what's goo
Exciting is definitely the word I would use.
What's dull and pedestrian about destroying a great proportion of PhD theses
and academic papers? If the proof is correct ...
Ian Thomas
Victoria Park, Western Australia
-Original Message-
From: ozdotnet-boun
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Ian Thomas wrote:
> Aside from the proof itself, 'exciting' would be P=NP rather than P!=NP.
"Exciting" isn't really the word I would chose to describe that result.
Dick Lipton (same blog) explains it well here:
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/insider-ba
Aside from the proof itself, 'exciting' would be P=NP rather than P!=NP.
Ian Thomas
Victoria Park, Western Australia
-Original Message-
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
On Behalf Of silky
Sent: Wednesday, 11 Augus
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:50 PM, silky wrote:
> http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/a-proof-that-p-is-not-equal-to-np/
> http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=456
>
> very exciting, eagerly awaiting results ...
Just incase anyone is interested and *not* following the discussion,
it's not looking g
