P = NP Proofs: Advice to claimers
On a related note, Scott Aaronson once wrote up a few heuristics he uses to quickly evaluate how likely a P&#x2F;NP proof is to be incorrect: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scottaaronson.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;?p=458" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scottaaronson.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;?p=458</a><p>Aaronson’s rules are more technical than the ones given in this article, the latter of which can be generally applied to most claimed (dis)proofs of famous open problems. In particular, poorly typeset papers from a solo, unknown authors are highly unlikely to be correct when they’re claiming to resolve well known open problems.<p>In regard to the P&#x2F;NP problem specifically, Aaronson’s examples of weaker open problems which would likely be resolved first - or at least accounted for in some nontrivial way - are analogous to this article’s point about proving weaker theorems first. It would be very suspicious for a proof that P and NP are separable (or not separable) to work at such a high level that it doesn’t prove <i>also</i> new results about the lower bounds of a litany of other problems.