
We are facing a crisis of transportability in computational science. When proofs depend on massive toolchains, specific hardware environments, or "accepted consensus," trust stops traveling. It gets stuck locally. In cybersecurity, we solved a similar problem by moving to a Zero-Trust Architecture: never trust, always verify. Why haven't we done the same for high-stakes mathematical verification? In my latest research, P = NP, A Proof That Travels, I propose exactly this: a verification protocol where the "prover" is treated not as a respected colleague but as an untrusted adversary.
Proof, cybersecurity, consensus, P = NP,, Architecture, computational science, ZeroTrust, transportability, verification, FOS: Civil engineering, P vs NP
Proof, cybersecurity, consensus, P = NP,, Architecture, computational science, ZeroTrust, transportability, verification, FOS: Civil engineering, P vs NP
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
