# Talk:Millennium Prize Problems

From RationalWiki

Um, why do we have this? I agree that Rationalwiki should include general educational references for math and science, but until we change the mission statement, I have no idea why we have this.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

- Because
*"Rationalwiki should include general educational references for math and science"*. We also have an article on Nobel Prize, which based on your argument, should not be here as well.**VOX**^{HUMANA}01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)- I'd say it'd be more relevant if there were crank attempts to resolve any of these problems. Or at least some controversy surrounding the prize, I don't know.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I could go either way on this. Riemann is a fairly popular crank target, the rest probably less so. The only one of these that ever shows up on my parts of the arXiv is the Hodge conjecture stuff, and there are indeed occasionally "solutions" to it (both proofs and counterexamples!). I'd guess maybe one a year or so makes it to the arXiv, which already screens out the worst in crankery. They're more just straight-up
*wrong*than "cranky" as such. - I'm not sure there's much interesting to say about the solvers: the authors give the impression of being people out of their depth who want to take a crack at a big problem. They aren't really in the same league as circle-squarers. --MarkGall (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

- I could go either way on this. Riemann is a fairly popular crank target, the rest probably less so. The only one of these that ever shows up on my parts of the arXiv is the Hodge conjecture stuff, and there are indeed occasionally "solutions" to it (both proofs and counterexamples!). I'd guess maybe one a year or so makes it to the arXiv, which already screens out the worst in crankery. They're more just straight-up

- I'd say it'd be more relevant if there were crank attempts to resolve any of these problems. Or at least some controversy surrounding the prize, I don't know.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

## The claim about best known algorithms in the P=NP section is incorrect[edit]

The article as it stands says that the best known solution takes 2^n steps, but there are programs that do better, described at the Subset sum problem page on WikipediaIke (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)