In short, it seemed that the proof was flawed at a meta-level -- there were certain results, such as that k-SAT has different behaviors (or tractability) at k < 7 and k >= 7, that the proof failed to explain or incorporate.
The consensus was that this was a welcome attempt at answering P ?= NP, but it wasn't sufficient.
1 comment
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 9.6 ms ] threadThe consensus was that this was a welcome attempt at answering P ?= NP, but it wasn't sufficient.