Talk:Vinay Deolalikar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Keep it simple: People want to know NOW who he is due to his claim. So they open Wikipedia. If the search frequency within Wikipedia drops below 10 (or to be defined n) hits per day, delete it again! So simple! Why should an encyclopedia NOT dynamically adapt to changing importance?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, convenience store clerks: keep this article about a reputable mathematician who seems to have solved one of the most important unsolved mathematical problems extant! If you swine can create articles about celebrities and thugs, you can keep this article. For even if Vinay's proof has an error, it will have an interesting error! (Edward Nilges) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

His paper has been called a really serious claim regarding P!=NP by various leading computer scientists like Richard Lipton and Stephen Cook. Besides that, he has a lot of other publications which I am still in the process of gathering which make him a notable personality in the field of theoretical computer science. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

His proof, correct or not, seems legit and is the best attempt in years at the important P?=NP problem. Therefore this is a big deal. Keep the article. (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone, even people who have enough of a background in the several diverse disciplines (complexity theory, statistical mechanics, etc...), has had time to decide whether it seems legit or not. Deolalikar is an outstanding researcher, but this is jumping the gun. He won't be notable enough for a wikipedia page unless his proof succeeds, and this page should be removed pending verification. Blowfish (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think 89.* really has grounds for saying this attempt is the best in years. Who knows what other ones there have been. (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the key here is that this article is neither poorly sources nor potentially libellous. Whether or not his proof is accepted isn't really an issue here, as mentioned it is attracting significant attention from leading academics which is surely enough (for now at least) to justify this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


I'd like to propose an AfD for this article (as an unregistered user I can't start one myself). It is way premature. Obviously if the proof checks out the article will be necessary. Otherwise it will be an embarassment to the subject, who didn't seek any sort of publicity (he circulated the proof privately to some other researchers for comment, but word got out). At least one real expert has bet long odds against the proof being right.[1] (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur, for these reasons and the ones I cited above. Blowfish (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Please feel free to go ahead and start the afd. I'll go as far as to make a prediction: the claimed proof will be refuted within 1 week (the duration of an afd discussion) from today. (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Since nobody else has obliged you, I started Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vinay_Deolalikar based substantially on your above rationale. Gavia immer (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Keep the Article at least for few weeks[edit]

In case the proof does not works out, which we will know hopefully in few weeks, this article can be deleted, however if the proof turns out to be as a significant step forward in the progress towards solving P ?= NP problem Then that will give instantaneous notability to this researcher. Also it is not an embarrassment for the subject since he has uploaded his copy on his personal website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thx for this webpage[edit]

I found this webpage (the article, not the discussion webpage) quite interesting. Thanks to the guys who wrote it. Once again, Wikipedia was the best place to get the best informations. That's too bad that some people want to delete this webpage. As a mathematician, I know it happens quite often that some preprints have some flaws (and sometimes, some flaws which are impossible to correct), there is nothing infamous about this. Errors are a part of evolutions of ideas, and there is not a single famous scientist who did no mistake (and even published/refereed mistakes !). It would be strange to make some censure on this article just because some ayatollah here think the author could be ashamed of such an "advertising". The preprint is publicly available on Deolalikar's webpage , and indeed contains interesting ideas (I'm not expert in complexity classes, so I wont be a good referee for this article but the whole approach really makes sense). And it is good that some people can join their effort in this wikipedia page to say more about the author and the proof, EVEN if the proof is not working finally. Just compare with physics, where you'll find hundreds of wrong/incomplete theories (with a wikipedia webpage on it). Unfortunately, it is more seldom to communicate on flaws in mathematics, but that's sad, because it contributes to spread the idea that mathematics are good/correct from A to Z, which is totally wrong. From a history of science point of view, from a mathematical ideas point of view, for a better understanding of computer science in progress, all such webpages are USEFUL. For sure, we'll know more in few days, but this does not make the article, as it is today, less interesting. I hope that more and more people could bring some precision/links, allowing any student to understand the approach, the challenge, etc. We all prefer to have good information in an usual location (wikipedia) rather than spending hours in reading blogs because some ayatollah decided not to let this information on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the usage of the word Ayatollah is apposite here. Dear Ayatollahs of Wikipedia, please stop making a fool of yourself (and Wikipedia as a consequence). Dear contributors of Wikipedia, thanks for this article! And like the above poster said, please devote your time/energy instead in bringing more relevant information/links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not delete!!![edit]

The person will be notable even if proof is shown to be incorrect. No proposed proof for this problem has generated such interest, and so quickly, from famous people in the relevant fields so far. Those who suggest quick deletion only show their ignorance and misunderstanding of what is important. A solution to such important problem can be very interesting scientifically, with a new interesting approach and new interesting techniques, even if incorrect.

All those with a quick finger on the delete button: Please be patient!

Meanwhile this article can provide updated reliable status on this solution to many avid Wikipedia users (like me) as the other Wikipedia articles do! (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - way too important --Yoavd (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

50.8K readers on Aug 10 2010 !!! (Source: Wikipedia statistics on the history page)

More than any computer scientist I have seen. Nobody can argue with such notability! -- (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also like the article to continue even if the proof is incorrect. This is clearly notable. Yanroy (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, look at the Wikipedia view statistics now ... pretty much says it all. Sorry folks. -- (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains way too many junk biographies, this person deserves a wiki page, at least for what he tried to do. --Thandermax (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Here is a story worth reading about another proposed proof that P!=NP:

It seems the same story is repeating itself. (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not delete, proof is under science crowdsourcing validation[edit]

There are plenty of crowdsourcing discussions about this proof, please do not delete for now till we have some more answers on this very complicated topic. References are Cameron, Dick Lipton and Ken Regan saying "The real questions are, is the proof strategy correct, and are the perceived gaps fixable?", Wiki discussion JKW (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming around in the idea of describing this effort in the P/NP problem article. I'm still not convinced that a biographical article is appropriate. (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

proof taken down?[edit]

Deolilikar seems to have removed the proof from his web site.[2] (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A new version has appeared[3] not yet linked from the front page. (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


I reverted an edit[4] that removed the context of Scott Aaronson's bet against the proof. Yes it's true that he hadn't carefully examined the proof when he made the offer. That was the whole point he was making. He is an expert on the P vs NP problem and a shorter reading through the proof was enough for him to "bet his house" against it being correct even though he didn't spot the specific errors (other people did, a few days later). Aaronson has another post up now, discussing his thought processes behind the offer. (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose moving to Vinay Deolalikar P ≠ NP Proof Attempt[edit]

At the AfD, I've proposed renaming this article to Vinay Deolalikar P ≠ NP Proof Attempt, due in part to this New York Times article: "What was highly significant, however, was the pace of discussion and analysis, carried out in real time on blogs and a wiki that had been quickly set up for the purpose of collectively analyzing the paper. This kind of collaboration has emerged only in recent years in the math and computer science communities. In the past, intense discussions like the one that surrounded the proof of the Poincaré conjecture were carried about via private e-mail and distribution lists as well as in the pages of traditional paper-based science journals." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a standalone article is justified. It might be worth a paragraph in an expanded article about the Polymath project. (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)