Timeline for Question about styles of reduction proofs
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2021 at 15:50 | vote | accept | Titanlord | ||
| Nov 8, 2021 at 14:56 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Polish
|
| Nov 8, 2021 at 14:32 | comment | added | Maeher | I have tried to make that point clearer. Just roll back the edit if you don't like it. | |
| Nov 8, 2021 at 14:30 | history | edited | Maeher | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 64 characters in body
|
| Nov 8, 2021 at 14:03 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Polish
|
| Nov 8, 2021 at 13:58 | comment | added | fgrieu♦ | @Maeher: I take your word on the definition of PPT, and I think I understood and fixed my mistake in the definition of non-negligible. Thanks for the corrections! | |
| Nov 8, 2021 at 13:52 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix defintion of PPT and non-negligible
|
| Nov 8, 2021 at 13:14 | comment | added | Maeher | Also, in 2. what you are describing is a noticable probability. This is not synonymous with non-negligible. | |
| Nov 8, 2021 at 13:13 | comment | added | Maeher | A PPT machine runs in strict polynomial time, not expected polynomial time. | |
| Nov 8, 2021 at 12:36 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Polish
|
| Nov 8, 2021 at 11:36 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Polish
|
| Nov 8, 2021 at 11:13 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Polish
|
| Nov 8, 2021 at 10:49 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Polish
|
| Nov 8, 2021 at 10:22 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Polish
|
| Nov 8, 2021 at 10:16 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Polish
|
| Nov 8, 2021 at 10:10 | history | answered | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |