Vinay Deolalikar was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 17 August 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
P versus NP problem. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Further reading new submission
I am trying to contribute in the section Further reading
User JayBeeEll is undoing my submission.
If i am doing something wrong can you please explain what is wrong so I can fix it.
Padfgb (
talk) 17:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Padfgb (
talk •
contribs)
13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, it is only a pre-print, and he'll have to publish it in a journal, but I've skim read through Gao Ming's paper, and I'm not seeing the problem. I think we should refer to it until such time as anyone finds a flaw in it. My edit was reverted by someone who didn't say why. What do others think?
Dan88888 (
talk)
16:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Lots of people publish "solutions" to famous open problems. For reasons of
due weight, to include such an announcement in this article would require significant coverage in
reliable, secondary sources, rather than a "skim read" by an individual Wikipedia editor. --
JBL (
talk)
16:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree with JBL. There are hundreds of these crank papers out there. Trying to cover each one would overwhelm our article, and also violate the requirement of
WP:FRINGE that we cover fringe material according to what mainstream sources say about it, not what the fringe material says about itself. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)reply
But Dan8888 has skimmed it and doesn't see a problem! Why isn't that good enough? Personally I'm convinced N vs NP has now been solved.
EEng19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I've learned more about Wikipedia this weekend, and now agree with the two comments above (but not with the ones below). Incidentally, my native Chinese speaking friend is convinced Gao Ming is a made-up name, which doesn't bode well for it being a successful attempt!
Dan88888 (
talk)
17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Hey, I'm not claiming it is a good publisher. I've never heard of it before. However, the evidence you provided I see falls short of proving it is a not a good one.
Also, by way of comparison, the 2010 “proof” was quickly shot down on the internet, and this time, that hasn't happened. I would think, there would be people motivated to move in, particularly on a journal that was perceived as a bad one. ~~~~
Dan88888 (
talk)
08:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
No, as a general rule people do not waste time debunking fake proofs published in fake journals, for obvious reasons. --
JBL (
talk)
18:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong claims require careful checking. Remember Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem? He did not do a pre-print, but he presented the proof over several days of lectures to a group of other expert mathematicians, and they agreed he had solved it (rather stronger statement than a single person skimming a paper). But even so, a fatal bug was found in the peer review process, that took two years to fix using techniques that were not in the original proof. So we need to let the peer-review process play out.
LouScheffer (
talk)
04:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)reply
But in the end Wiles was right after all, so all that checking and debugging turned out to be a waste of time. If everyone'd just believed him in the first place ('cause he is, after all, wicked smaht) then they could have spent those two years doing something useful like squaring the circle.
EEng06:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia does not publish papers or original research. When reliable secondary sources discuss a supposed solution we can report what those sources say.
Meters (
talk)
20:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Here are two guesses for the 14,000 accesses that day. One is that the page was mentioned in some popular newspaper or social media account, with a clickable link. Google news shows only one mention on 27 March (in
this article on the Pythagorean Theorem), and it's not clickable. So I think social media is more likely. Another possibility is programs fetching the page, perhaps for a large enrollment computer science course, or perhaps just a bug that fetches the page over and over. I'm sure many other explanations are possible.
LouScheffer (
talk)
15:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)reply