Comment

Comment by cperciva

I'm not at all an expert on this material, but some random points to get people started:

0. This guy looks orders of magnitude less looney than the usual P=NP prover. I hope someone who knows this material well steps in soon.

1. This guy has implemented his algorithm. This is a very good sign -- most garbage "algorithms" are exposed to be broken when people try to implement them.

2. Most 3SAT problems are "easy". Being able to solve a particular problem doesn't mean that the algorithm works in general. He would have done better to demonstrate his algorithm on "known hard" problems.

3. He states a running time of O(n^4 m), but his experimental results don't scale quite like this; perhaps his analysis is wrong, or perhaps there's just a monster hiding behind the big-O.

4. If he is correct, and his algorithm is optimal, we probably don't need to worry very much about cryptography yet: It looks like this algorithm is far too slow to be a practical attack on existing cryptosystems.

(EDIT: Oops, in the time it took me to write that, 18 other people posted comments. Well, so much for getting the discussion started...)

parent cperciva 16 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton