Timeline for Confusion in 2012 paper by Austrin and Håstad regarding hardness of approximating GLST
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2015 at 21:33 | vote | accept | Mark | ||
| Oct 30, 2014 at 20:01 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | As long as it works, yes. No need to be unsettled about it; in an ideal world, the authors might have formulated the theorem and the examples consistently, or explain exactly how to apply one to the other, but life is not perfect. | |
| Oct 30, 2014 at 19:21 | comment | added | Mark | Something is unsettling about resolving the question this way. Am I supposed to flip $x_1$ in my mind, when $P$ is referred to later in the paper? Like in example 8.7, should I be thinking $P'$ whenever $P$ is mentioned? | |
| Oct 30, 2014 at 19:14 | history | answered | Mark | CC BY-SA 3.0 |