<p>See the <a href="http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Deolalikar_P_vs_NP_paper" rel="noreferrer">wiki</a>. </p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-08-16T20:32:57.867Z
2010-08-16T20:32:57.867Z
Suresh Venkat
<p>In one word: No.</p>

<p>It seems that there are some fatal flaws in Deolalikar's proposed proof. The real question now is if the "proof" has any useful ideas that can be built upon. In any case, it seems that the proof in its current form simply isn't correct, and can't be corrected either. On the other hand, Deolalikar has not given up on the proof, so I guess it's not the end of it.</p>

<p>You can find an update here: <a href="http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/the-p%E2%89%A0np-proof-is-one-week-old/">http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/the-p%E2%89%A0np-proof-is-one-week-old/</a></p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-08-16T20:36:48.810Z
2010-08-16T20:36:48.810Z
Tomer Vromen
<p>There was recently a claimed <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/08/08/226227/Claimed-Proof-That-P--NP" rel="nofollow">proof that $P \ne NP$</a>. Not long after its publication there were raised <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/10/08/11/0239209/Possible-Issues-With-the-P--NP-Proof" rel="nofollow">some issues</a> with this proof.</p>

<p>So ... is the proof correct or not ? (Please only answer this if you have evidence ... this question might take some time until it's answered)</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-08-16T21:57:33.907Z
why the vote to close ?
Suresh Venkat
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-08-17T00:03:38.883Z
I think the question should specify which proof it refers to (at least mention name of the author). It is clear now, but may not be clear in a year from now.
Moritz
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-08-17T03:47:24.970Z
The link does refer to the recent story, although I'd much rather the OP link to the polymath wiki or Deolalikar's page than a slashdot post that seems less permanent
Suresh Venkat
<np-hardness><cc.complexity-theory>
Is Deolalikar's 2010 proof that $P \ne NP$ correct?
ripper234
# Is Deolalikar's 2010 proof that $P \ne NP$ correct?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2010-08-16)

There was recently a claimed [proof that $P \ne NP$](http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/08/08/226227/Claimed-Proof-That-P--NP). Not long after its publication there were raised [some issues](http://slashdot.org/story/10/08/11/0239209/Possible-Issues-With-the-P--NP-Proof) with this proof.

So ... is the proof correct or not ? (Please only answer this if you have evidence ... this question might take some time until it's answered)

**Tags:** np-hardness, cc.complexity-theory

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: why the vote to close ?  
> **username_2**: I think the question should specify which proof it refers to (at least mention name of the author). It is clear now, but may not be clear in a year from now.  
> **username_1**: The link does refer to the recent story, although I'd much rather the OP link to the polymath wiki or Deolalikar's page than a slashdot post that seems less permanent  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2010-08-16. Score: 20 | Accepted answer

In one word: No.

It seems that there are some fatal flaws in Deolalikar's proposed proof. The real question now is if the "proof" has any useful ideas that can be built upon. In any case, it seems that the proof in its current form simply isn't correct, and can't be corrected either. On the other hand, Deolalikar has not given up on the proof, so I guess it's not the end of it.

You can find an update here: <http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/the-p%E2%89%A0np-proof-is-one-week-old/>


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2010-08-16. Score: 21

See the [wiki](http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Deolalikar_P_vs_NP_paper).


---

