Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:27:36 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <878qvaf3br.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <85955d539da522cf777ab489101c0e2a@www.rocksolidbbs.com>
	<4b415dd5a91ac648bee8224fc3c28aa19706e06f.camel@gmail.com>
	<a4cacd3261a32cb9a769fbfe6ed1cd15@www.rocksolidbbs.com>
	<87cykqgfax.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<MWqdnZDONIeEjWv7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<877cawhg6g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<AqidnfQXj44K-Gr7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<87plonfgj9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<b3c272b418222bc082b7cbf3ce1b0852@www.rocksolidbbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 01:27:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="92afe1feb265ab9858c0d7f89210c9a2";
	logging-data="2027652"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rjQEXiLuhWFpZVA5Vt2b1XJZRb3w2wiE="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tm+a9V+F9+lXqkMv8HioxHp+3wY=
	sha1:NT7b64/sanEhHw+/4xzGaYHB1/w=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.6295ff9d55bb1e0791da.20240930002736BST.878qvaf3br.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Bytes: 2441

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.