vznvzn

4 ms·

1.
Ahmed Mohamed and his clock commotion, top news/ links(vzn1.wordpress.com)
1 points by vznvzn 11y ago|0 comments
2.
DEEP LEARNING REVOLUTION, summer 2015, state of the art and topnotch links(vzn1.wordpress.com)
1 points by vznvzn 11y ago|0 comments
3.
Microsoft silicon valley TCS research lab shuts down(vzn1.wordpress.com)
2 points by vznvzn 12y ago|0 comments
4.
Joy of code 2013, natl CS Edu week Dec9-16, lots of cool links(vzn1.wordpress.com)
1 points by vznvzn 13y ago|0 comments
5.
Deep learning, AI/real brain research leads/news/compendium/singularity(vzn1.wordpress.com)
1 points by vznvzn 13y ago|0 comments
6.
Erdös100—tribute to a brilliant contrarian [lots of links](vzn1.wordpress.com)
1 points by vznvzn 14y ago|0 comments
7.
by vznvzn 14y ago
there are indeed dozens of incorrect papers which make neophyte errors. however, this one was written by a TCS Phd [from what I can tell] with a respectable number of published papers, some in TCS. I have studied this particular area of att
8.
by vznvzn 14y ago
thats what I meant. was writing P/poly != NP to mean "NP is not a subset of P/poly". or do we have to worry about the case where P/poly is a superset of NP? have never even considered that, have no idea what it would imply, think it might b
9.
by vznvzn 14y ago
oops. thx for info. didnt notice that. new to this. sorry for multiple replies that should just be edits.
10.
by vznvzn 14y ago
"as far as I know, proving an exponential lower bound for an NP complete problem doesnt immediately rule that P!=NP". that statement is FALSE . P!=NP is exactly a consequence of proving exponential lower time bounds. actually P!=NP would b
11.
by vznvzn 14y ago
P/Poly is NOT polynomial depth circuits. it is you that is mistaken about this complexity class characterization. it is polynomial SIZE circuits. other statements of your post are incorrect . P !=NP does in fact follow as an immediate, d
12.
by vznvzn 14y ago
have not dug into the paper, but basically if it can be shown that NP cannot be computed with Poly-size circuits, then P!=NP, ie a weaker consequence of the stronger NP!=P/Poly. that is one of the basic conjectures of circuit theory, a stro
13.
by vznvzn 14y ago
"its not clear that he's confident enough yet to invite more active discussion on his effort from the theory community". that is highly debatable; arguably that was his intent in creating the public blog and putting all the papers fully
14.
by vznvzn 14y ago
here chow elaborates further/in depth on the "natural" condition in the Razborov Rudich proof & finds some evidence for "nearby" functions that potentially could be used to defy the Razborov-Rudich natural proofs barrier: http://arxiv.
15.
by vznvzn 14y ago
hi AK. maybe consider blogging about this? this is a well written but superficial analysis. scott aaronson insists on his blog that a proof should explain why it succeeds against "known barriers" eg razborov/rudich Natural Proofs. but this
16.
by vznvzn 14y ago
hi all. meant to post a comment but didnt understand this hackernews interface so far, am brand new to this site. fukuyama states on his web page he's worked on P vs NP for over 10 yrs, both inside and outside of his professional jobs which
17.
Jun Fukuyama's P≠NP Page(junfukuyama.wordpress.com)
156 points by vznvzn 14y ago|81 comments