Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
rocks
troll's with sticks
All sorts of dragons
Mrs Cake
Huje green things with teeth
Any kinds of black dogs with orange eyebrows
Rains of spaniel's
fog
Mrs Cake
Proofs of P ≠ NP
Speaking of the devil, here is the latest question on MO: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/35151/if-pnp-is-proven-what-is-the-implication-towards-bqp.
It almost made me want to ask this question on the front page: Why is this new "proof" of P!=NP so uncontrollably exciting?
+1 to Andrew for the Discworld reference (Going Postal, isn't it?) and I am inclined to agree with Kevin. As for Hailong's implicit question, I guess the free group factor problem isn't Slashdottable (as yet, thankfully).
@Yemon: "Going Postal" is .... the riiiiiiight answer!
(Though to be pedantic, a variant of it does appear in an earlier book - can't remember which off the top of my head - but Going Postal is what I'm reading right now so was the one to hand.)
@David and Jonas: I certainly appreciate the importance of P!=NP and agree with you that the actual contents of some of the questions look reasonable. What is a bit annoying is many of them cite the new proof as the motivation. As many people have pointed out, in a few months it will be perhaps a much better time for asking.
I confess that if I did not know what P vs. NP is, I could not infer anything sensible from the article. Still, I have read worst reports on the Poincaré conjecture.
@Kevin: thanks for the links, very interesting.
A constructive and thoughtful conversation seems to be happening here:
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/update-on-deolalikars-proof-that-p≠np
in which Terry Tao has a summary:
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/update-on-deolalikars-proof-that-p≠np/#comment-4885
May be we can redirect vague questions about the new proof there?
1 to 16 of 16