Skip to main content
15 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 13, 2019 at 22:06 history edited Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0
Simplify the math.
Oct 13, 2019 at 21:02 history edited Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0
Elaborate on prevalence of derangements.
Mar 11, 2019 at 23:32 history edited Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0
Declutter the notation at the top.
Mar 11, 2019 at 22:55 history edited Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0
Put the derangement-substitution bound in the perspective of the permutation-substitution bound.
Mar 7, 2019 at 21:28 history edited Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0
Use clearer delimiters.
Feb 21, 2019 at 12:29 history edited Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0
Equality can hold here. No change to conclusions.
Feb 21, 2019 at 12:14 history edited Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0
Clarify that it may make a difference of efficiency.
Feb 21, 2019 at 6:48 comment added kodlu Asymptotically insignificant but still it's something.
Feb 21, 2019 at 6:47 comment added kodlu Actually the expression before "We can stop here..." simplifies to $q/2^{b}$ due to a telescoping product which divides the bound on $Pr[F]$ by a factor of 2.
Feb 20, 2019 at 20:13 history edited Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0
Give some introductory motivation.
Feb 20, 2019 at 19:22 history edited Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0
Clarify what O is.
Feb 20, 2019 at 19:17 comment added Squeamish Ossifrage @kodlu It is either oracle, whether a uniform random permutation $\pi$ or a uniform random derangement $\delta$.
Feb 20, 2019 at 18:57 comment added kodlu Nice. What is $\mathcal O$ in $\Pr[B(\mathcal O)] = 1 - \Pr[A(\mathcal O)]$ ?
Feb 20, 2019 at 18:52 history edited Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0
Point out how the quoted table figures into bounds like this.
Feb 20, 2019 at 18:18 history answered Squeamish Ossifrage CC BY-SA 4.0