Re: Hofman and Diaby talk about P=NP at INFORMS 2007

On Feb 10, 1:22 pm, t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <45c9ea9f$0$562$b45e6...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, I wrote:
So there are 31988850360320 variables and 14155377697 constraints.
Moews and Hofman have checked all 14155377697 constraints and have not
been able to find a violated constraint.

Professor Diaby, this is a reminder that we are still waiting for your
response. You asked us to determine how many constraints Moews and Hofman
checked, and to compare this with how many constraints they *should* have
checked. We now know that they checked 14155377697 constraints, and this
also appears to me to be the correct number of constraints that they
*should* have checked. Therefore, the simple counting procedure that you
suggested has not uncovered the violated constraint.

So I repeat: David Moews has responded promptly to your request. Will
you now respond promptly to my request, to find the violated constraint?
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

Dr Chow,

I am sure whatever specific statement I make now regarding this will
only lead to another round of circles, and I just don't have the time

....But, for your information, I am currently working on a generalized
version of my model, and that will give me the chance to re-examine
the proofs. ...If Hofman has indeed stumbled into something thatshows
that constraints 2.12-2.13 are not redundant in my model after all, I
am confident I would uncover where the the oversight occurrs.

So, whatever the issue of this "counter-example" is, it can be
redressed trivially... Unfortunately, I just don't have the time for
this now. So, may be we can all relax a little about this for now?