An old but classic column by Bill Gasarch: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/papers/poll.ps
Inspite of Luis’s “proof” this poll still seems as relevant as ever.
[Lowerbounds, Upperbounds]
Algorithms are everywhere.
Recent Comments
- Book Child on Splitting and Joining PDFs by pdftk
- Sander on Command Line Mute
- Andras Horvath on Changing PDF Margins With The pdfpages Package
- Robert on Free PDF Annotation Softwares
- Project Management Hut on Advising and Project Management
Categories
- ALADDIN Center
- Books
- Calendar
- Combinatorics
- Data Structures
- Discussion
- Electronic Documents
- Excel
- Geometry
- Grad School
- Inspirational
- Ipe
- Just for Fun
- LaTeX
- Local Copy
- Mathematics
- Open Problems
- PowerPoint
- Research
- Scientific Computation
- Scripting
- Software Tools
- System Administration
- Tablet PC
- Teaching & Talks
- Text Editing
- Theory and News
- Theory of Computing
- Versioning
- Windows
Some Theory Blogs
- 0xDE
- Andy’s Math/CS
- Computational Complexity
- David Molnar
- Developing for Developers
- Ernie’s 3D Pancakes
- Glob of Thoughts
- In Theory
- Logic and Complexity
- Machine Learning (Theory)
- Mathematics and Computation
- Michael Trick’s OR Blog
- My Biased Coin
- My Slice of Pizza
- Quantum Pontiff
- Shtetl-Optimized
- The Geomblog
- Vanity of Vanities, all is Vanity
- WebDiarios de Motocicleta
Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
21:11 on April 24th, 2005
So I’ve never heard of cohomology, but I have Mathworld to my rescue.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cohomology.html
And you know what, their reference on this subject is this article: Rabson, D. A.; Huesman, J. F.; Fisher, B. N. “Cohomology for Anyone.” Found. Phys. 33, 1769-1796, 2003.
Now I start to wonder if I am one of their “anyone”. Maybe only physicists are in that set?
11:53 on April 25th, 2005
Yeah, I have no idea what cohomology is either but I just found that quote amusing.
It is a quote from Ken Regan from SUNY-Buffalo in case anyone is wondering.
14:13 on April 25th, 2005
Every once in a while I like to re-read this poll. It helps to remind you that, when it comes to P vs NP, we are all equally the ignoramus.
(BTW, after struggling through several readings a long time ago, I still fail to see how cohomology will help.)
14:27 on April 25th, 2005
I found the “Cohomology for Anyone” on arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0301/0301601.pdf
This in particular does not seem relevant to Regan’s comment. (However, topology notions like those in the above did lead to a proof that wait-free k-set agreement is not possible, cf. last year’s Goedel prize winners.)
Perhaps more relevant is the following survey that Regan himself wrote about the ‘algebraic’ approaches to P vs NP. Enjoy…
http://theorie.informatik.uni-ulm.de/Personen/toran/beatcs/column78.pdf