Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.theory > #37275

Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N

From Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N
Date 2021-07-29 20:12 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <87lf5p3pep.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References (14 earlier) <17d77cd8-cbc8-4932-be1d-f909c3297c6an@googlegroups.com> <bcf74a9c-7ad9-4231-b906-4131c8cd2ce4n@googlegroups.com> <f543e865-41eb-4935-a30b-b71b21357fa0n@googlegroups.com> <878s1p5ft5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dfda1448-305e-4d7e-8d9b-cfdf4ca8c0can@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> writes:

> +All solvers must output the base 10 log of the result, but the format
> +allows for an exact count as well.
>
> the log10 format saves a few bytes on a two day computation 
> where accuracy of the answer is paramount.  they allow printing out 
> the precise answer but the competition fails to use it.

So it would appear.  I've just read the scoring system used, add all
"accepted" solutions count.  A solution is acceptable if it is within
some relative error bound of the expected result.

> they did that because they have a clique of researchers 
> that do not give precise answers to the precise 
> question of model counts.  they have the impression 
> that making a wild guess at the value of a deeply 
> meaningful number may also be deeply meaningful.

Wild guesses won't win.  The error bound is not wide enough for that.

I wonder how these approximate solvers work.  Maybe they have a way to
count all the "low hanging fruit" first, and then expect the other
solutions not yet found will not put the result out of bounds.

> i am trying to argue with them, and trying to 
> get information on how well bob did and 
> who won track 1.

I think you need to give them time.  It can't be easy in these troubled
times to collate all of the data.

But arguing for different criteria when the scoring was publish before
the competition was run just won't work.

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.theory | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 18:19 -0700
  Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-08 02:44 -0700
    Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N DV <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2021-07-08 05:37 -0700
      Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-08 14:21 -0600
        Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-14 07:28 -0700
          Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N DV <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2021-07-14 14:28 -0700
            Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-15 12:51 -0700
              Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 03:45 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N DV <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 06:48 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 14:28 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 04:45 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:35 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 00:35 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 02:40 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 17:27 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 11:50 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 20:52 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 15:53 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 16:58 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 17:41 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 01:45 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 20:07 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 20:27 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 14:59 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 02:27 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 06:24 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 07:50 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-29 11:44 -0600
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 11:59 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-29 13:23 -0600
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 20:04 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 15:56 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 11:53 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 20:12 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 13:12 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 23:18 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 15:36 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 16:38 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 00:59 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 17:05 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 01:19 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 17:27 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:22 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 19:16 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-29 22:25 -0600
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 00:35 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 10:53 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 05:19 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 14:22 +0100
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 07:16 -0700
                Re: revised relativization theorem: P=NP for small N, P!=NP for large N Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 15:22 +0100

csiph-web