Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question

nnymous109@gmail.com (nnymous109) writes:

I tried to make one major suggestion to the author: explain (in English)
in what way the core of the argument differs from the usual "it must
examine all the cases" non-proofs that keep cropping up.

>
And there's what I most unsure of. I've heard of these "examine all
cases" non-proofs, but I don't know what exactly makes them fail (is it
just that they don't give any reason why we must examine all the cases
or is it something deeper?)

Yes, just that.  Nothing deep at all (though it's obviously very hard to
give a sound reason or the P/NP question would have been settled long
ago).

I hope you will forgive me, but I have limited time and this discussion
is already spread across two sub-threads so I plan to reply (from no on)
only in the main sub-thread where I've commented on your argument in
some detail.

If I've missed something here that you think it crucial, please repeat
it in that sub-thread.

--
Ben.