<story><title>A proof P = NP was accidentally published in TOCT</title><url>https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1417215848633159689</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>gberger</author><text>Here is some additional context: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;rrwilliams&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1417161397960646658&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;rrwilliams&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1417161397960646658&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>A proof P = NP was accidentally published in TOCT</title><url>https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1417215848633159689</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>allochthon</author><text>Can someone in the know unpack what&amp;#x27;s going on here for a less-informed audience?  I know vaguely about the outstanding question of whether P = NP, and how it&amp;#x27;s generally thought that P is not equal to NP.  But beyond that most of the context here is unknown to me.</text></comment>