[likpok]

> So far I've only read the introduction and it doesn't obviously involve any advanced mathematics that I'm unfamiliar with so I could perhaps attempt an implementation.

This is a bad sign for the paper. The prior cases of solving big foundational problems I'm aware of all introduce substantial new math. So much so that the actual problem is something of an afterthought. Wiles's proof of Fermat's last theorem is substantial.

It's not impossible that this is legitimate, but... it seems unlikely that P=NP has evaded proof for so long if the solution were straightforward. There are also a LOT of plausible-but-flawed proofs -- it's not unsolved for a lack of trying.

[tgflynn]

That's the kind of argument I've never put much credence in, otherwise I never would have even attempted to solve the problem.

I still think it's possible that there could be a relatively simple solution that has so far eluded humans. They are burdened by many individual, institutional and societal biases and I think they are far less intelligent than they generally believe.

[undreren]

Simple proofs are often only possible, because the language of mathematics become increasingly descriptive over time.

The language conveniently helps us make incredibly complicated statements by using specialized terms. Simple solution are rarely that simple, once we eschew the jargon of the field.

We stand on the shoulders of giants, and all that.