Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!ur-valhalla!badri
From: badri@ur-valhalla.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: P = NP
Message-ID: <863@ur-valhalla.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Nov-86 18:17:13 EST
Article-I.D.: ur-valha.863
Posted: Sun Nov 23 18:17:13 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Nov-86 04:28:49 EST
References: <1953@emory.UUCP> <269@mipos3.UUCP> <403@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: badri@ur-valhalla.UUCP (Badri Lokanathan)
Organization: EE VLSI Graduate Research Facility, UR, Rochester NY
Lines: 20

In article <403@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> lieman@brahms (Dan Lieman) writes:
>Sounds to me like you heard about Manuel Blum's recent results in the
>area of zero information proofs.  For example, he examines the question
>of whether I can convince you that I have proved a certain result, without
>telling you anything about the result.  He claims that this is possible.
>
Is this statement supposed to be a joke or something? I cannot make
any sense out of it.
What exactly is meant by "without telling you anything about the
result"? The moment you say that you have proved a certain result,
you have disclosed the result. This would automatically contradict the 
second part of the statement. I would indeed like to hear more about
this in sci.math.

Badri Lokanathan
-- 
"We will fight for the right to be free/\ ur-valhalla!badri@rochester.arpa
 We will build our own society        //\\ {caip,cmcl2,columbia,cornell,
 We will - we will sing              ///\\\ harvard,ll-xn,nike,rutgers,seismo,
 We will sing our own song."  -UB40 ////\\\\ topaz}!rochester!ur-valhalla!badri