If you can solve either problem, it is worth $1 million. http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/
--- Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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=85467695-32692f
