@hardmath Wow ! A really tough number !

@Peter: I don't know whether you saw the disagreement in CURED about this post, which I personally think deserves to be deleted because the author is just a crank as per their original website. I voted already. If you agree, then we would need to get a third vote later.

@user21820 I'm slightly familiar with that user. "Just a crank" is IMHO overly harsh. Math.SE gives him an opportunity to answer a Question which is about a paper he wrote and an algorithm he proposed. Some of what he has to say will be of interest to Readers who search for his work, so I'm not in favor of deleting it. It is self-serving but acknowledges in a back-handed way that his original claim was overstated.

@hardmath I disagree. A false claim (in this case that the author found a deterministic algorithm running in polynomial time solving an NP-complete problem) is never of any merit. It only confuses and leads to further wrong conclusions. This post must be deleted under all circumstances.

@Peter As I read his post (the Answer here on Math.SE) he explicitly denies that his polynomial time algorithm solves P=NP: "It is clearly stated in the paper, many times, that the P vs NP question is an open question. The algorithm does not claim to solve this question one way or the other." This is what I mean by saying he acknowledges in a back-handed way that his original claim was overstated.