Follow-up

From: tcne (tcne1837_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/20/05 

Date: 19 Jan 2005 21:26:51 -0800

This thread would contain a number of open letters and is intended for
opinions of relevant people with relevant contents.

Other personal opinions of the highest value can never be wasted but
can surely find another spot in this vast space-time.

===================================

In addition, here is a brief note for Daniel and Gerhard:

Thank you very much for the effort toward a comprehensive coverage of
the history and status of the issue at:

        http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm

lumping truth and everything together.

I am quite sure you are aware of the 'unconventional' part in the
published version of the paper. However, I here make it explicitly
clear that the proof of P != NP does not depend on it. Besides, one
major purpose of it being there has absolutely nothing to do with
mathematics! I think you may fare better making your understanding of
it, if any, explicit.

I would like to further clarify something. Any consequences from it
being in the paper are the sole responsibility of the author. Neither
the program chair nor the conference committee nor the referee(s)
should be blamed in any slight way for it. As a matter of fact, it was
not in the version submitted for review. The editor shares no blame,
either.

Again, one reason for it was TOTALLY UNRELATED TO MATH. I do not quite
know if, --- with reference to A. E. --- in order to have a bit of
hope, making it look insane is of help. :)

As a side note, Szabo was invoked not because we absolutely needed it.
It was there to impress, showing I could actually have reference in my
paper! :)

If you are really serious, I have one recommendation. NP-complete is
regarded to be one of the most important theoretical achievements in
complexity theory. It would be a great waste to not see it put to some
real use. Therefore, for any of the proofs that claim P = NP, try
applying the completeness polytime translation and show that the
analogy (given about the fractured primes) is polytime solvable.

I think you are responsible people and know that consistent
mathematics never allows conflicting claims to be both valid (unless
it is your genuine purpose to have both together indiscriminately).

Regards,
TCNE

P.S.
If you have anything to say about the purpose of your page, the
reference to my paper, or anything else, please kindly respond to the
post in sci.math.

Relevant Pages

  • Follow-up
    ... Other personal opinions of the highest value can never be wasted but ... applying the completeness polytime translation and show that the ... mathematics never allows conflicting claims to be both valid (unless ... it is your genuine purpose to have both together indiscriminately). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Follow-up
    ... Other personal opinions of the highest value can never be wasted but ... applying the completeness polytime translation and show that the ... mathematics never allows conflicting claims to be both valid (unless ... it is your genuine purpose to have both together indiscriminately). ...
    (sci.crypt)