Page 1 of 1

The Satisfiability Problem... NP or P?!

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:45 am
by kenbrooker
Found a June article via "Medium" titled The Boolean Satisfiability Problem, solved? by
Juan Manuel Dato (Ruiz?) and trying to work through it to...
Confirm what would be... Ramanujanesque...

Anyone know of any pros or cons??
Anyone know how to...
Contact Dato?!

Re: The Satisfiability Problem... NP or P?!

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:03 am
by jaap
https://medium.com/swlh/the-boolean-sat ... ceb5550115

It is badly explained, and is certainly not a proof.
It ends with:
Considering that it is able to find a solution in most indices, as it usually works with a high probability (80%) then you can always try another index to find the desired solution.
Based in this result I considered my demonstration that SAT is solvable in a polynomial time and space.
Basically he can solve easy cases (presumably - the whole text really goes through one particular small case which may or may not be representative of all small cases) and claims that this proves it for all cases, which is nonsense. He has not shown that his method is polynomial. He has not quantified the probability in the text I quoted. He has not shown how this probability changes as the problems grow larger.

Re: The Satisfiability Problem... NP or P?!

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:44 pm
by kenbrooker
Thanks! jaap...

What would I do without jaap's astute "Reply"s? And Thanks for posting the link; the least I could/should have done...

I think English is a second language for Dato and, mistranslations aside, I am still interested in trying to
code his algorithm: a) to see if I even understand it and b) to see if it can solve
even the simplest CNFs; and Yes, of course, in polynomial time?

80% or even 20% success on such a Classic Problem would probably be
more progress than ever in... ALL of TIME?

Already I'm computing Dato's Theorem One --

(not x | x and y | z1) · (x and y | y | z2) · (z1 | z2 | x <-> y) = 1
[Other readers please note: "|" is Not the usual OR]

to be ALL False vs ALL True!

If I arrive at anything more
report-worthy
I'll post it...

Thanks
Again!!
jaap,
Ken


jaap...

If you've got another "minute," I am translating
Dato's (A|B|C) as ((A^B)^C) & !(A&B&C) which
works correctly for his first Proposition --
(A|B|C)·(B|D|E)·(C|E|F) = 1

Re: The Satisfiability Problem... NP or P?!

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:00 am
by kenbrooker
A typo in Dato's Theorem One; supposed to read --

(not x | x and y | z1) · (x and y | not y | z2) · (z1 | z2 | x <-> y) = 1

and... Only a Tautology with respect to x and y, a sample of
Dato's different approach to Logic...

Re: The Satisfiability Problem... NP or P?!

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:56 am
by kenbrooker
https://medium.com/swlh/the-boolean-sat ... ceb5550115

Now reads -- The Boolean Satisfiability Problem vilely censured.
"Apologies: someone hacked the article to avoid sharing this technology."

I guess that "someone" is me because I privately asked the author a couple of questions which he twice answered with Truth Table-evident falsehoods. When I Commented about this to Medium.com I was promptly Blocked.
Deleting the first article and re-issuing, a clever way to bury my pre-Blocked Comment.
I guess jaap's wise skepticism is well confirmed...

I know the above hurts my credibility too but, since I brought up the Subject,
I do believe this article is credible and
with 2 good examples which
I will be studying --


https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... on_Solving