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


t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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

Why don't they just use computers to check if it's right?

.