Re: P=NP: Linear Programming Formulation of the TSP

In article <1114705022.982353.67560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<moustapha.diaby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I am quite convinced of the soundness of my overall approach.
>But, I guess we will only know for sure about the correctness of the
>current formulation after the formal review process is completed...

As far as the Clay prize is concerned, passing the formal review process
is not enough. They say that "it must also have general acceptance in
the mathematics community two years after." Then they will go through
their *own* review process on top of that.

I agree with the CMI's attitude that the result of formal peer review
is not any kind of guarantee of the truth. For example, one common
scenario is that the formal review process results in a peremptory
rejection that the author feels is incorrect and unjust. The reverse
scenario also happens: people get their work published because they
have the right friends in high places, even though the work is wrong.
Where does the truth lie then?
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
.