The Exponential Time Hypothesis Is False [pdf]
- ID
- 39829
- Status
- summarized
- Published
- 27 Oct 2026, 5:59 AM
- Fetched
- 27 Oct 2026, 11:14 AM
- Provider
- Hacker News
- Category
- dev-community
- Original URL
- https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/preprints/The-Exponential-Time-Hypothesis-is-False-October-25-2026/paper.pdf
- Source URL
- https://hnrss.org/best
Summary
- Score
- 4.5
- Created
- 27 Oct 2026, 11:15 AM
- Tags
- Audience
- developersai_ml_learners
What happened
A PDF titled 'The Exponential Time Hypothesis Is False', dated October 25 2026, sits in the openai/math GitHub repository and hit the front page of Hacker News (336 points, 135 comments). The submitted page is only GitHub's file-viewer shell — no abstract, proof sketch, author list, or claims are visible in the text provided, so the actual argument cannot be summarised from this source.
Why it matters
Nothing here lets a builder change a decision yet: there is no readable claim, no proof, no benchmark and no released code in the excerpt, only a filename and a repo path. The one concrete thing you can act on is the 135-comment HN thread, which is where any technical scrutiny of the paper would be concentrated — read that before repeating the headline, and treat 'ETH is false' as an unverified title rather than a result.
Discussion angle
The paper is unreadable in this source, so the live question is process: how do you triage a headline claim like 'ETH is false' when the only artefacts are a title, a repo path and a comment thread — and what would you need to see (proof, formalisation, independent check) before it changes how you think about algorithm complexity?