Le 27-août-06, à 12:43, Russell Standish a écrit :
> I recall reading this paper, and the followup entitled "The Random > Oracle Hypothesis is False" by Chang et al. Have you the reference? Do you know if Chang has found a math error, or a conceptual mishandling? I would be interested to know. >> From recollection though, the claim was of superior algorithmic > performance (ie solving NP problems in P time) rather than solving > uncomputable problems. I doubt this very much, but I will check and let you know, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
