1
$\begingroup$

In this question I wrote the following comment.

I voted to close as I don't consider the question objectively answerable. I could imagine a version that would fit with the site, though. A community wiki like: "Please post links to opinions of TCS experts about the P/NP problem." Maybe. for example, I've heard that Terence Tao considers P/NP to be a 500-year problem, but I've never seen a concrete reference. It would be interesting to collect such things.

Now I'm wondering if I was off-base. It seems sorta-kinda in the big-list category to me, and if someone tries to hijack by posting multiple links to a crank, the community will vote those answers down. But it's not as clear-cut as links to refereed papers or videos of invited talks.

Thoughts?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Here's the key difference between this and other potential big list questions. A good close-by question is the one on what papers everyone should read. That question works because the answer is a union of specific nuggets, each having nontrivial content (paper A, paper B, and so on). It's opinionated, but the answers are concrete.

For P vs NP, it seems to me that the answers themselves, while being opinionated, are less likely to have factual content. The question is phrased "what do you think of P vs NP", and so the answers will be of the form "I think (= or $\ne$) because of X", where "X" is some subjective reasoning based on the evidence that we do have. X is not a specific list of concrete thoughts though.

Even if the question were made more concrete like "What are current plausible lines of attack", there's really only one answer - Mulmuley's approach. So either way, there's nothing here except a way of letting people let off some steam, and I don't think that's what this site should be about.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .