🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ifljqINN137@nunki.anu.edu.au> jmr@cs.anu.edu.au (Mike Robson) writes:
>>So currently my proof is dead but if you believe in resurrection
>>watch this space.
>
>>Mike Robson.
>
>AARRGGHH!!
>
>Jim Reeds has proved that this problem cannot be fixed.

When you come up with a P=NP proof, first make sure you can translate it to
several of the other known NP-complete problems.  Each conversion should lead
to some significant result and insight if the original proof is correct.
Also, you'd get far more attention by simultaneously publicising polynomial
algorithms for 10 to 20 NP-complete problems, and a single tenuous and
highly abstract proof.  The conversions are in the literature, so it's
a trivial bookkeeping process to develop 20 algorithms from one.

Second, test the thing out before publicising it, by running the algorithms on
actual cases and then using these test cases to exemplify the algorithms when
you do publicise them.

If you're refereeing journals or otherwise trying to determine the validity
of P=NP proofs, reject all alleged proofs that don't meet the two criteria
above.