In October of 2007 a critic ridiculed me by sarcastically asking how my linear solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem was coming. I have talked about the possibility that there might be a linear solution but I have never claimed that I had one. I do not know of any general solution the Traveling Salesman Problem that can be run in Polynomial Time, much less Linear Time.
I studied the Satisfiability Problem of Logic (SAT) in 2005 and 2006 because I thought it was easier than the Traveling Salesman Problem, but I eventually gave up when I realized that I was wasting too much time on it. However, after reading the derogatory comments that were directed at me in October I started thinking about the problem again. Because my critic was a fan of statistics-based AI, I started to wonder if a novel statistical approach to the Satisfiability Problem might work. One morning in late October, while driving on the Merritt Parkway near New York, I decided to focus my mind on the problem to consider some possible ways to work it as I was driving. My attempt to concentrate was unusually effective that morning and as I thought about the problem I came up with a novel and interesting approach that I hadn't considered before. Just at the moment that this new idea came to me, a coincidence occurred that made me wonder if God was indicating that I had finally figured out how to solve the problem. I did not assume that the coincidence was definitely a message of direction but I decided to carefully remember what I was working on just on the slim chance that it was. The method that I came up with seems to work perfectly for the simpler cases that I have tried but I am still struggling to test more complicated cases. I do not fully comprehend why it works and I do not know how to prove that it is or is not generally effective. Some details of my theory are still in flux, but the method holds so much potential that I am dedicated to pursuing this direction of research until I understand it better. It is an interesting approach to the problem, but I do not believe that I would have continued in this direction if I had not thought that there was a chance that God might have been involved. Intuitively, the method looked completely wrong when I first scrutinized it and I am only now beginning to let myself believe that it might actually work. I am being very candid about this in spite of the fact this may make me subject to more criticism and ridicule. However, I do not believe that an attempt to solve a challenging problem is ridiculous in itself, and I have never been an admirer of religious bigotry. If I am wrong then I just made a mistake. So what? What's the big deal? I am not trying to mislead or hurt anyone and making errors seems to be a necessary part of human existence. Right now I am committed to work toward a better understanding of this new method and I am confident that it will prove to be important in one way or another. Jim Bromer ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=85461334-795c26
