You find yourself in a situation where you have managed to produce a correct, constructive proof that P = NP by providing a polynomial-time algorithm for an NP-complete problem. Let's also say that this algorithm happens to have an extremely practical running time, say O(n^2).
Ignoring whether or not this is possible, what would be the 'right' plan of action to take in this situation? Such a solution would have an extreme effect not only on the academic sphere, but also on the life (and potentially safety and privacy) of people around the globe. Do you (a) publish your work in a public, peer-reviewed journal or conference, (b) keep your work to yourself, or (c) do something else entirely?
>>8195552
sell it to the highest bidder
>>8195570
Is that really the most intelligent option? A capable enough bidder could just then use your algorithm and a bit of social engineering to take that money back.
>>8195552
you (d) talk to a professor to check it out and tell you why you're retarded
>>8195577
I'm sorry, friend, but I believe you missed the stated premise of this being a hypothetical situation in which you do, in fact, have a correct solution. Whether or not a solution as such exists in reality is beside the purpose of this thread.
>>8195623
okay let me try
You find yourself in a situation where you have proved the Riemann hypothesis in 5 lines. What would be the 'right' plan of action to take in this situation?
see how retarded it sounds?
>>8195626
Again, you've missed the premise of this thread, which is to pose the question of what the correct plan of action to take would be in the case of obtaining an algorithm proving P=NP. Specific problem; specific consequences.
As for what to do if you were to produce a sufficient proof of the Riemann hypothesis, I believe that is a valid question, though I'm unsure of if the repercussions are as severe as in the case of a constructive proof that P=NP, which would, as just a single example, pose a significant danger to any government or private entity making use of public key cryptography.
>>8195637
What would you do if a genie gave you three wishes?
>>8195637
a constructive proof that P = NP doesn't have to imply any danger. the algorithm could be slow enough to be impractical, P doesn't really mean "fast" in a practical sense. see for example matrix multiplication, where the n^{2 + eps} algorithms are tremendously slow compared to the naive n^3 one.
the premise is ridiculous. and that's my suggested plan of action if you find an n^2 algorithm for an NP complete problem: talk to someone who actually knows what he's doing.
if you just prove P = NP, then write down your proof well and publish. that's what you do in academia.
>>8195643
This has nothing to do with mathematics or science.
I have a creeping suspicion that your insecurity at the very thought of somebody, somewhere solving a famous, open problem is enough to cause you to resort only to trolling and insults as opposed to taking part in any profitable discussion.
For this reason, I will simply suggest that you continue to educate yourself and stop responding. For the record, plenty of famous figures in the field, regardless of their opinion on what seems to be the likely case in the matter of P vs NP, tend to reserve bias until an actual conclusion is reached for the sole purpose of not allowing belief to cloud progress towards a solution; I would suggest that you follow suit if any part of you has legitimate interest in the problem. See https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/papers/poll.pdf as a starting point if you're in need of references.
>>8195665
>insecurity
>educate yourself
shut the fuck up you stupid newfag
no one gives a shit what kind of pop readings you did on complexity before you made this retarded as fuck thread
stop pretending to know about any of this, it's clear you don't by your idiotic "hurr n^2 algorithm for NP complete problem"
>>8195552
Sorry about the edgelords shitting up your thread, OP. I thought you had an interesting ethical question and was excited to read some answers but apparently people are too "pure" to look past perceived flaws in a hypothetical.
>>8195672
>sorry OP let me kiss your ass and contribute absolutely nothing
yeah you're totally not OP alright
>>8195651
Again, the premise of the original post is that you have a solution which is both asymptotically efficient and practical in a worldly sense.
If you don't think your computer is able to perform a O(n^2) (again, according to the premise that hte algorithm run-time has a small multiplicative constant) computation at n = 1,000,000 (more than enough to reduce circuit-SAT to SAT for many critical bases of cryptography) in enough time to pose a threat to somebody, you either have an extremely old computer, or you have no idea what you're talking about yourself. This doesn't even begin to mention how much more power such an algorithm gives to somebody who already has enough monetary resources to gain access to advanced hardware.
>>8195670
You, sir, are a shining example of the grace and wit of a truly learned mind.
>>8195670
>hurr durr n^2 algorithm for NP complete problem
>Godel's letter to von Neumann
top kek
>>8195552
Is the proof constructive? And what does it even matter you reached O(n^2)? Big-O notation measures scalability, not efficiency or feasability. As other anon noted, O(n^3) algorithms can be much more efficient than O(n^2) if the operations required curtail a longer constant.
>>8195697
Not directly stated, but I think OP is assuming that the multiplicative constant is small.
>>8195552
Algorithms are social constructs.
