Many of those journals don't take P=NP proofs because they often come from quacks. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see the start of a full proof coming from a non-theorist. Theorists have failed to make headway on P=NP for decades, so it would be reasonable to assume that some insight from a different place would be required.
Comments
Many of those journals don't take P=NP proofs because they often come from quacks. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see the start of a full proof coming from a non-theorist. Theorists have failed to make headway on P=NP for decades, so it would be reasonable to assume that some insight from a different place would be required.
The author is CS professor in university of Winnipeg
He's the perfect profile for having the start of a P/NP proof: a full professor in computer science, but not really in the subfield of CS theory.