. (or worst do not understand these terms) then you are likely to be considered a "crank". 
What experts care about is progress in our understanding of the nature of efficient computation, not just solving some open problem for its own sake. 
On the other hand, a crank just wants to solve the open problem and is not interested in progress in our understanding of the nature of efficient computation. 
Let's say someone shows that SAT can be solved in 1000000000n^1000000000 without any improvement in our understanding of the nature of efficient computation. I don't think that is an acceptable solution to P vs. NP for any expert in complexity theory. 
Similarly if someone shows that SAT is not in P but it still might be in n^{lg* n}. 
Or say someone gives me an encrypted completely formal solution of P vs. NP which can be verified to be correct by decrypting and looking at a few bits. 
The reason complexity theorists and theoretical computer scientist care about P vs. NP is the expectation that it will lead to a significant improvement in our understanding of the nature of efficient computation. 
But "crank" doesn't understand this. To a "crank", P vs. NP is like a computer game that has only one level and he wants to finish the game.
A "crank" is like someone who wants to win the gold medal for swimming in Olympics without demonstrating to anyone that he can swim.
If you are seriously interested in complexity theory, try attacking simpler problems, get good interesting results, and get them published in reputable venues. 
Eventually you will become an expert and experts will be ready to consider your attempt more seriously. 
Let me add this: 
the same rules applies to experts, 
i.e. if an expert claims to have solved P vs. NP too often 
(i.e. more than once in her life time, maybe twice), 
she would be ignored after her first/second claim. 
There has been claims of solution for the problem by experts in the previous decades, 
the difference between such experts and a "crank" is that they know claiming to have solved P vs. NP brings with it the great risk of loosing almost all of their professional reputation among their peers and not to be taken seriously anymore, 
reputation that they have gained over years through painful work. 
Therefore an expert won't gamble it easily
. (or worst do not understand these terms) then you are likely to be consider a " methamphetamine ". 
 What experts care about is progress in our sympathy of the nature of efficient computation, not merely solving some open trouble for its own sake. 
 On the early hand, a crank barely wants to solve the clear problem and is not interested in progress in our understanding of the nature of efficient calculation. 
 Let's say someone shows that SAT can be clear in 1000000000n^1000000000 without any improvement in our understanding of the nature of efficient computation. I don't remember that is an acceptable solution to P vs. NP for any expert in complexity theory. 
 Similarly if someone shows that SAT is not in P but it however might be in n^{lg * n }. 
 Or say someone gives me an encrypted completely formal solution of P vs. NP which can be verified to be correct by decrypting and looking at a few bits. 
 The reason complexity theorists and theoretical computer scientist care about P vs. NP is the expectation that it will lead to a significant improvement in our understanding of the nature of effective calculation. 
 But " crank " doesn't sympathize this. To a " methamphetamine ", phosphorus vs. NP is like a computer game that has only one level and he wants to finish the game. 
 A " methamphetamine " is like someone who wants to win the gold medal for swimming in Olympics without demonstrating to anyone that he can float. 
 If you are seriously interested in complexity theory, try attacking simpler problems, catch good interesting results, and get them published in reputable venues. 
 finally you will become an expert and experts will be ready to consider your attempt more seriously. 
 Let me add this: 
 the same rules put on to experts, 
 i.e. if an expert claims to have solved P vs. NP too frequently 
 (i.e. more than once in her life clock time, maybe doubly), 
 she would be ignored after her first / second claim. 
 There has been claim of solution for the problem by expert in the previous decades, 
 the difference between such expert and a " crank " is that they know claiming to have solved phosphorus vs. NP brings with it the great risk of loosing about all of their professional reputation among their peers and not to be taken seriously anymore, 
 reputation that they have gained over years through irritating work. 
 Therefore an expert won't gamble it easily
. (or worst do not understand these terms) thgn you ace likemy to be considered a "crank". 
What expxrts care about is progress in uur underdtanding of uhe nature of effmdient computaflon, nmv just solving xome open [roblem for itv uwu sake. 
On the other hand, a crank juse wants tl solve the opgn prpflem and is not interested in progress in our understandinb of the nature of efficiejt clmputation. 
Let's saj someone syows rhat SAT can be solved in 1000000000n^1000000000 withouj any improvement in our understxndiny of the najbee lx efficient compltation. I don'b think that ix an acceptablc solntiob to P vs. NP for any xxpert in complexity theory. 
Shmnlarly if someone shoqs that SAT is vit kn K bnt jt stipl jight be ih n^{lg* n}. 
Or way someone gives mt ag encrypted cojpletejy formal solution of P vs. NP which can bt verjfied to be correct by eecrypting and lookinh at a fer bits. 
The reason complexity theorists and theoredical zomkubcr szuejtist care about P vs. NP is the expectation trzt in will lead to a fignificant ilptjvement in out understahding of the naturf of efsiciebt computwtiom. 
But "crank" doesn't understabd this. To a "xrank", P vs. NP is lnke a computzr gamg that has only one level and he sants to fijish the fxme.
A "crank" is liye xokeone who wants to win the gold medel fox swimmivg im Olym[ics withokt demonstrating to anyoje thct he can swim.
Iv you are seriously interested mi complexity jhemry, try attccking simpler probjems, get good nnterestnng rerults, and fet thek published in reputable genues. 
Eventnally you wilo bexome an dxpert and exprrts will be ready ro consider your abtempj jore seriously. 
Oet me add this: 
thr sxme rllex w[plies to ex[ertr, 
i.d. if av experu coxims to have solved P vs. NP foo often 
(i.e. more yhwn once un her lyfe time, maybr twice), 
she would he igiored efter ner first/second claim. 
There has bsen claimd on solution fow thc prjblem by erperts in the previous decades, 
the diffecence between such expgrts and a "crank" is tkau they know ckaimigg to hava solved P vs. NP bribgs with it the gveat risk of loosing ammost dll ov their professional reputation among their peers and not to be taken seruously anymore, 
rephtatoon tvac tkey havq gamnxd over years thrpugh painful work. 
Therefore an xxpert won'd yamble it easily
. (or worst do not understand these you likely to considered a "crank". progress our understanding of nature of efficient not just solving some open problem its own sake. On the other hand, a crank just wants to solve open problem and is not interested in progress in our understanding of the of computation. say shows that SAT can be solved in 1000000000n^1000000000 without any improvement in our understanding of the of efficient computation. I don't think that is acceptable solution to P NP for any expert in theory. if someone that is in P but still might be in n^{lg* n}. Or say someone gives me an encrypted completely formal solution of vs. NP be verified be by and looking at bits. The reason complexity theorists and care about P vs. NP is the expectation it will to a significant improvement in our of the nature of efficient computation. But "crank" understand this. To a "crank", P vs. NP is like a computer game that has level and he wants finish the game. "crank" like who to win gold medal for swimming in Olympics without demonstrating to anyone that can swim. If you are seriously interested in complexity theory, simpler get good interesting and get them published reputable Eventually you will become and will consider attempt seriously. Let me add the same rules applies to i.e. if an expert vs. NP too often (i.e. more than once her life time, maybe twice), she would ignored after her first/second claim. There has been claims of solution for problem by the previous decades, the difference between such experts a "crank" is that know claiming to have solved P vs. NP brings it great risk loosing almost all their professional reputation their peers and be taken anymore, that over years through painful work. Therefore expert gamble it easily
. (or worst do not understand theSe terms) theN you aRe lIkeLy To be ConsIdered a "crank". 
WhAT expErts care about is progresS in ouR uNDersTAnDing oF the natURe OF EffIcIeNt cOmPUtAtion, Not Just solVing some opEn pRoBlem for its owN SaKe. 
On the othEr hAnd, a crank jusT waNts to sOlVe tHE open ProBlem aNd is noT IntereSted in proGrESs in ouR UnderstANDiNg of The nature of efficiENt COmputation. 
Let's Say somEoNE sHOWs tHat sAT can be soLvEd in 1000000000n^1000000000 WIthout aNY iMPROveMEnt in our underStanding of tHE naTure of EfFicIEnt comPutatIoN. i doN't think that Is an AcceptablE solutIOn to P vs. np for any Expert In cOmpLexiTY tHeOry. 
siMIlaRLy If sOMeoNe shows tHaT SaT is nOt in p BUT It stIll MighT be in N^{lg* n}. 
Or say someOne GiveS Me aN encrYpted CompLeTely fOrmal sOlutiOn Of P vs. NP which can Be veRified to bE coRrEct By DecryPTing anD loOkiNg at a feW bits. 
ThE ReaSoN COMpLexity theorists and ThEOReTical comPuter sCIeNtISt care abOuT P vS. NP iS THe expEctaTIoN that it wIll leaD To A sIgnificAnT improVeMenT in Our unDErstAnding Of the natUre of EFficient computATion. 
But "crank" dOEsN'T UnDErstAnd This. To a "cranK", P vs. np is lIke a COmPutER game That hAs ONlY One level and he wants tO fInish tHe gamE.
A "crank" is like Someone who WANTs to win tHe goLD mEDal for swimming In OlyMpics withoUT demonstRatinG to anyonE that he caN SWim.
If you Are SerIouSly INTeRested in complEXIty tHeOry, try aTtaCking siMplEr pRobLemS, gEt good intEresting ReSuLtS, aNd gEt theM PublisheD iN rePuTabLe venUEs. 
EvenTuallY you WiLl BEcoMe an expERt AND expErTs Will Be rEaDy to cOnsiDEr yOur atteMpt more seRioUSly. 
LEt Me Add this: 
The same rules aPpLies to expeRtS, 
i.e. If an exPERt claims To have solved P vs. NP too oftEN 
(i.e. more ThaN once In heR life time, MayBe twicE), 
shE Would bE ignorEd aftEr Her FIRst/seCONd ClaIm. 
there has beEN ClaIms of SoLutiOn for thE problem by experts iN The Previous decadEs, 
tHe diFFErEncE BeTWeeN sUCh eXPErts and a "crank" is That they knOw CLaIming to havE SolVeD P vs. NP bRings wiTh it tHE great rIsk of loosIng almost AlL of tHEIr pRofessionaL reputatIon among tHEir peERs And noT to Be takeN sEriOusly AnymorE, 
RepUtatiOn that ThEy have GaineD oVer years Through painful work. 
ThereFore an ExperT woN't gamble iT eaSIly
. (or worst do not underst and theseterms ) t hen  y ou a re l ikely to be co n side red a "crank". 
What e xpert sc area bo ut is  progre s si n  ou run der st a nd ing o f t he natu re of effi cie nt  computation ,  n ot just so lvi ng some open  pr oblemfo r i t s own  sa ke. On the otherhand, a c ra n k just wants t o so lvethe open problema nd is not interes ted in  p r og r e ssinour unders ta nding of then at u r e  of efficient com putation. L et' s sayso meo n e show s tha tS ATcan be solv ed i n 1000000 000n^1 0 0000000 0  withou t anyimp rov emen t  i nour  u n der s ta ndi n g o f the na tu re  of e ffic i e n t  com put atio n. Idon't think t hat  isa n a ccept ablesolu ti on to  P vs.  NP f or  any expert incomp lexity th eor y.  
S im ilarl y  if so meo neshows t hat SAT isno t i nP but it still mig ht b ein n^{lg * n}.Or  s a y someon egiv es m e an en cryp t ed  complet ely fo r ma lsolutio nof P v s.  NP  wh ich c a n be  verif ied to b e cor r ect by decrypt i ng and lookin g  a t af ew b its . 
The reas on c o mple xity th eor i sts a nd th eo r et i cal computer scient is t care  abou t P vs. NP is  the expec t a t ion that  itw il l  lead to a sig nific ant improv e ment inour u nderstan ding of t h e  natureofeff ici ent c om putation. 
Bu t "cra nk " doesn 'tunderst and  th is.  To  a  "crank",  P vs. N Pis  l ik e a  comp u ter game  t hat  h asonlyo ne lev el an d he  w an t s t o finis h  t h e  gam e. 
A  "cr ank "is li ke s o meo ne whowants towin thego ld  medalfor swimmingin  Olympicswi tho ut dem o n strating  to anyone that he cans wim.
If  yo u are  ser iously in ter estedinc omplex ity th eory,  t rya t tacki n g  s imp le r problems , get  good  i nter estingresults, and get t h empublished inrep utab l e  v enu e s. 
Ev en t ual l y  you will becom e an exper ta nd  experts w i llbe  readyto cons idery our att empt more  seriousl y.  
Le t meadd this:
the sam e rules a p plies to  expe rts , 
i.e .ifan ex pert c l aim s tohave s ol ved Pvs. N Ptoo ofte n 
(i.e. more than once  in he r lif e t ime, mayb e t w ice ), 
she w ould  be ignore d a fte r her  fi r st/se cond cl aim .  
The re h a s been cl a im s o f so lution fort h e  pr oblem  by expert s in  the previous dec a des, 
the diff eren c e  be twe e n su ch  experts and a  "c ra n k " is tha tthey know c laimingto havesolved  P vs.  NP bri n g sw ith it  the  gr eat riskoflo o sing al mo st all of  the ir  profe ssiona l  rep u t ation among thei r pee r s  andn otto be  t aken se r ious ly anymore , 
reputati on tha t th ey ha ve gain ed  overyea rs  through p a inful wor k. 
T herefor ean e xpe rt won 't g a m ble i t ea si ly
. (or_worst do_not understand these terms)_then you_are_likely to_be_considered a "crank"._
What experts care_about is progress in_our understanding of_the_nature of efficient computation, not just solving some open problem for its own sake._
On_the other_hand,_a_crank just wants to solve_the open problem and is_not interested_in progress in our understanding of the nature_of_efficient computation. 
Let's_say someone shows that SAT can be solved in_1000000000n^1000000000 without any improvement in our_understanding of the_nature_of_efficient computation. I don't_think that is an acceptable solution_to P vs. NP for any_expert in complexity theory. 
Similarly if someone_shows that SAT is not in_P but it still might_be in_n^{lg* n}. 
Or say someone_gives me an_encrypted completely_formal solution of_P vs. NP which can be_verified to be_correct by decrypting and looking at_a_few bits. 
The_reason_complexity_theorists and_theoretical computer scientist_care_about P_vs._NP is the expectation that it_will_lead to a significant improvement in our_understanding of the nature_of_efficient computation. 
But "crank"_doesn't understand this. To a_"crank", P vs. NP is like_a computer_game that_has only one level and he wants to finish the game.
A_"crank" is like someone who wants_to win the gold_medal for_swimming_in Olympics without_demonstrating_to anyone_that he can swim.
If you are seriously_interested in_complexity theory, try attacking simpler problems,_get good interesting results,_and_get them published in reputable venues._
Eventually you will become an expert_and experts will be ready_to_consider_your attempt more seriously. 
Let_me add this: 
the same rules_applies to experts,_
i.e. if an expert claims to have_solved_P vs. NP too often 
(i.e._more_than once in her life time,_maybe_twice),_
she would be ignored after_her first/second claim. 
There has been_claims of solution for the problem by experts in_the previous decades,_
the difference between such experts_and_a_"crank" is that they know claiming to have solved P_vs. NP_brings with it_the great risk of loosing almost all of their professional_reputation among their peers and not to_be taken seriously anymore, 
reputation that they have gained over years_through painful work. 
Therefore an expert won't gamble_it easily