Vinay Deolalikar circulated a proof of P != NP to a private group on Friday, which found its way to the online media, slashdot, et al. He has updated the proof document 3 times since then, starts with citing Gita and matri-pitru rin, and connects first-order logic with fixpoints with freezing phenomena in statistical physics to get the proof done. Its an epic size drama in the world of mathematics and computer science: a lone guy against a world of hardcore detractors and a not-so-few bunch of sympathetic well-wishers. The odds are 101% against him, and yet he's fighting it out.
What is particularly new and awesome to this event is the amount of crowd sourcing that it has attracted.
An up-to-date wiki with all changes/discussions/objections to the proof methods, media coverage, ..:
http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Deolalikar%27s_P!%3DNP_paper
Richard Lipton's blog with hoards of discussion inside comments:
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com
I'm still not sure why I'm fascinated by all this. Perhaps being able to appreciate some aspects of the proof is driving me crazy. Perhaps because the proof is so accessible and elementary. Perhaps, the sight of a crowd of knowledgeable geniuses scattering their knowledge for free is incredible. Perhaps, because talking about such apparently deep stuff in a strikingly dinner-table fashion smells of a new world. I don't know, but I'm completely taken in.
A collaboration of such magnitude, where no one guy is able to understand the whole deal (and moreso, wants to spend min time to find an counterexample) - Vinay D (~ Dev D:) ) is partly to blame cos he did handwave at multiple places. On another note, feels like a bunch of advisers helping this doode out for his journal submission - I bet he would be most "simultaneously advised" guy in the whole world right now. Wonder how many he is seriously listening to. Perhaps, they should update the wiki with the necessary and sufficient list of papers to read to prove/disprove the result - that will surely accelerate crowd-sourcing even more.
What I find distressing in this whole saga is that a large proportion of detractors (even highly knowledgeable ones) are not making crisp statements about the fallacies or the hand-waving. Instead, many of these comments (.e.g, on lipton's blog) appear to be merely their egoistic manifestations (as is common in usual intellectual conversations) of the learned commenters without allowing Vinay D the benefit of doubt, even though they haven't read the document properly. The really targeted crisp objections, on the other hand, are put quite gently, allowing the author plenty of room to adjust and argue. This (despicable) facet of intellectual conversation will probably never go away.
Don't know if the proof is going to survive for long. But the event is an historical one, and I'm glad to be a closeby observer. Also, some thoughts on obscurity vs clarity in math presentation:
http://www.jmilne.org/math/tips.html
Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound strive for obscurity.
---Nietzsche.
