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

On Feb 10, 4:11 pm, t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1171139144.303299.4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

Ah...the first indication on your part that you admit that you might
be wrong! I am glad that you are now adopting a more scientific attitude,
instead of simply insisting blindly that "everything is in your paper,"
that your argument is *completely* correct, and that the arguments of
Hofman and Moews are "idiotic" and not worth examining.

I think you have been misunderstanding my position. There is a *huge*
difference between saying "I think constraints in your model that you
have concluded are redundant, may actually not be so" and saying "your
whole approach is wrong: 1) here is a 'counter-example'; 2) here is a
demonstration of why it is impossible for your approach to work."

Hofman refers to the version of my work that is published in the IMECS
2006 Conference Proceedings in his published claims. Clearly, his
"counter-example" is not valid for that paper since the model in that
version *does* have the equivalent of constraints 2.12 - 2.13 in it.
Also, all of Hofman's argumentation about "Why LP's cannot solve NP-
Complete problems" just betrays limits on his expertise in math.

You mean you *hope* that it can be addressed trivially.

No, I mean what I said: The only possibility is that some step in one
of the proofs requires constraints 2.12-2.13 for
*sufficiency* ...So, I think the checking would be a rather simple
affair if there is time to properly concentrate on it.

The true
scientist---who is interested only in the truth, not in saving face
or defeating his opponents---would admit that the issue remains open
until you *actually* find time to address it.

I don't think the validity of the version of the model that already
been peer-reviewed and published (i.e., the IMECS Proceedings
publication) is an open issue, since there is no peer-reviewed,
published claim to the contrary (at least, as far as I know).

On the other hand, you can rest assured that this issue of the
redundancy/non-redundancy of constraints 2.12 - 2.13 in more recent
versions of the model will have been thoroughly revisited (and
resolved, if necessary) in anything I would make public from now