<p>Gerhard Woeginger has an up-to-date page with all attempts to (dis)prove the <em>P</em> vs <em>NP</em> question:
<a href="https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm" rel="noreferrer">https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-29T12:27:18.193Z
thanks but i already know that page and it stop in 2016...
Yamar69
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-29T15:43:14.437Z
@Yamar69 If you already knew about this page, you should have mentioned it in the question.
Emil Jeřábek
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-11T11:13:45.900Z
This important page is now gone - it is replaced with a redirect to https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10951-022-00748-4
Erel Segal-Halevi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-16T11:35:17.360Z
The page is back, but obviously unmaintained. Did anyone take over the updating of such an archive?
Bruno Rohée
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-11T20:12:27.010Z
Here is a fairly new try … https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09512.
EGME
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-29T11:56:04.317Z
2019-05-29T11:56:04.317Z
PsySp
<p>The last such serious attempt was likely Norbert Blum's attempted proof of P <span class="math-container">$\neq$</span> NP in 2017.  Not long after it was submitted to arxiv, it was discovered to have a serious (but nontrivial) flaw.</p>

<p>This proof was discussed on stackexchange <a href="https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/38803/is-norbert-blums-2017-proof-that-p-ne-np-correct">here</a> (and in more detail <a href="https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/38886/tardos-function-counterexample-to-blums-p-neq-np-claim">here</a>), and on several blogs (like <a href="https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/on-the-edge-of-eclipses-and-pnp/" rel="noreferrer">Godel's Lost Letter</a>).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-02T09:53:40.443Z
2019-06-02T20:08:47.280Z
2019-06-02T20:08:47.280Z
SamM
<p>What are the most recent (say in the last 3 years) attempts at disproving <span class="math-container">$P = NP$</span>, and where can I find the papers?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-29T13:37:21.177Z
Why the downvotes?
Nicola Gigante
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-29T15:15:23.583Z
I assume the downvotes (not me) because most such attempts have an obvious flaw in them and do not really add to our understanding of the problem.
Joshua Grochow
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-29T21:41:21.920Z
Have you tried the search feature of arXiv?
Clement C.
<cc.complexity-theory>
Attempted proofs of P vs NP
Yamar69
# Attempted proofs of P vs NP

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-29)

What are the most recent (say in the last 3 years) attempts at disproving $P = NP$, and where can I find the papers?

**Tags:** cc.complexity-theory

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Why the downvotes?  
> **username_2**: I assume the downvotes (not me) because most such attempts have an obvious flaw in them and do not really add to our understanding of the problem.  
> **username_3**: Have you tried the search feature of arXiv?  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_9 on 2019-06-02. Score: 11 | Accepted answer

The last such serious attempt was likely Norbert Blum's attempted proof of P $\neq$ NP in 2017. Not long after it was submitted to arxiv, it was discovered to have a serious (but nontrivial) flaw.

This proof was discussed on stackexchange [here](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/38803/is-norbert-blums-2017-proof-that-p-ne-np-correct) (and in more detail [here](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/38886/tardos-function-counterexample-to-blums-p-neq-np-claim)), and on several blogs (like [Godel's Lost Letter](https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/on-the-edge-of-eclipses-and-pnp/)).


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-05-29. Score: 21

Gerhard Woeginger has an up-to-date page with all attempts to (dis)prove the *P* vs *NP* question:
<https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm>

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: thanks but i already know that page and it stop in 2016...  
> **username_5**: @username_0 If you already knew about this page, you should have mentioned it in the question.  
> **username_6**: This important page is now gone - it is replaced with a redirect to https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10951-022-00748-4  
> **username_7**: The page is back, but obviously unmaintained. Did anyone take over the updating of such an archive?  
> **username_8**: Here is a fairly new try … https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09512.  

---

