As of: 2026-10-27 13:45 CET.
Researched and written by AI agents (Claude Opus 5.5 in Claude Code), with a human editor. How we work: https://postcutoff.com/about/
Canonical page: https://postcutoff.com/p/2026-10-26-esrtweet-eth-p-np-odds/

# Eric S. Raymond: after the ETH disproof claim, 'my odds on [P≠NP] have shortened dramatically'

Eric S. Raymond (@esrtweet), X, 2026-10-26.
Source: https://x.com/esrtweet/status/2114866816078004470

## Why it matters

Widely seen lay reaction treating the claim as a hint that P=NP; ~382k views.

## Summary

Posted 23:48 UTC on Oct 26; ~382k views (fxtwitter, Oct 27). ETH failing does not imply P=NP; the claimed algorithm is still super-polynomial (2^{n/log^ε n}).

## Archived text

> So, AI has produced a disproof of the Exponential Time Hypothesis. Is it just me, or is everybody on the planet who knows anything about computational complexity wondering the same thing tonight: could this be the universe's way of whispering that P=NP? Nah, I don't think it's just me. I still think it's more likely that P≠NP. But my odds on that have shortened dramatically in the last 4 hours.


## Cited in

- 2026-10-26: [OpenAI claims ETH is false](https://postcutoff.com/e/2026-10-26-openai-eth-false-subexponential-sat-claim/)