Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
scottaaronson.blog | ||
| | | | |
blog.computationalcomplexity.org
|
|
| | | | | As someone who has literally written a book on the topic, I have had many people over the years send me their attempts at P v NP proofs. On ... | |
| | | | |
gowers.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | | | It's been a while since I have written a post in the "somewhat philosophical" category, which is where I put questions like "How can one statement be stronger than an another, equivalent, statement?" This post is about a question that I've intended for a long time to sort out in my mind but have found... | |
| | | | |
rjlipton.com
|
|
| | | | | Another proof idea using finite automata Steve Cook proved three landmark theorems with 1971 dates. The first has been called a "surprising theorem": that any deterministic pushdown automaton with two-way input tape can be simulated in linear time by a random-access machine. This implies that string matching can be done in linear time, which inspired... | |
| | | | |
jaydaigle.net
|
|
| | | We continue our exploration of what numbers are, and where mathematicians keep finding weird ones. In the first three parts we extended the natural numbers in two ways: algebraically and analytically. Those approaches gave overlapping but distinct sets of numbers. This week we combine them to get the complex numbers, and see some hints of why the complex numbers are so useful-and so frustrating. | ||
