🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ij07vINN2f6@nunki.anu.edu.au> jmr@cs.anu.edu.au (Mike Robson) writes:
>markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>>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.
>>Mark
>
>Thanks for the suggestion.
>
>I've just come up with a fantastic n^12 algorithm for the subset sum
>problem which translates into a n^24 algorithm for SAT which gives me
>a n^48 algorithm for graph isomorphism. As soon as I have tested this
>on a few non trivial pairs of nonisomorphic graphs I'll submit
>it to CACM (or whatever journal seesm appropriate in 100993).
>Mike Robson.

Better yet:  I've just come up with a beautiful n^2 algorithm for graph
isomorphism, but the actual execution time is 10^100 * n^2 seconds.
Marcel