Sniffnoy comments on When does an insight count as evidence? - Less Wrong

11 Post author: alexflint 04 January 2010 09:09AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (37)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 January 2010 05:59:41PM 5 points [-]

Now we know that either P=NP is proveable from the axioms of set theory, or its converse is

This isn't to be said casually; it would be a huge result if you could prove it, and very different from the case of neither being provable. Most things that are true about the natural numbers are not provable in any given set of axioms.

I mention this because I read that and woke up and said "What? Really?" and then read the following parenthetical and was disappointed. I suggest editing the text. If we don't know anything in particular about the relation of P=NP to set theory, it shouldn't be said.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 04 January 2010 10:33:11PM 1 point [-]

Also, alexflint, you mean "negation", not "converse".