P = NP Proofs: Advice to claimers
I&#x27;m a crank.  I found this article very valuable.<p>In 2010 I put online a brief refutation of the EMH, the efficient market hypothesis.  Here it is: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1011.0423" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1011.0423</a><p>If I had seen this then, I think I would have followed the directions in the inset box, where the article suggests saying something like: &quot;The reason I succeeded in finding an algorithm for P=NP is that I noticed that... No one else seems to see that this insight is very powerful. It is very useful since it implies ...&quot;<p>I could have simply written: &quot;Nobody has bothered to test the Efficient Market Hypothesis, but since I have some background in computer science I made an unusual mental connection, and it follows that it doesn&#x27;t need to be tested.  It cannot be true.&quot;<p>(My proof outlined a way to show it has to be false.)  I remember my thinking at the time was that I didn&#x27;t need to explain it at all, just make it correct and brief.<p>At the time, I didn&#x27;t want to include anything personal in the paper.  Perhaps I should have.  It&#x27;s not a very good paper.