ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Applying practice to theory
Full text PdfPdf (683 KB)
Source
ACM SIGACT News archive
Volume 39 ,  Issue 4  (December 2008) table of contents
COLUMN: Technical columns table of contents
Pages 37-52  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISSN:0163-5700
Author
Ryan Williams  Carnegie Mellon University
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 6,   Downloads (12 Months): 110,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1466390.1466401
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

How can complexity theory and algorithms benefit from practical advances in computing? We give an overview of some prior work using practical computing to attack problems in computational complexity and algorithms, informally describe how linear program solvers may be used to help prove new lower bounds for satisfiability, and suggest a research program for developing new understanding in circuit complexity.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
K. Appel and W. Haken. Every planar map is four colorable. Part I. Discharging. Illinois J. Math. 21:429--490, 1977.
 
3
K. Appel, W. Haken, and J. Koch. Every planar map is four colorable. Part II. Reducibility. Illinois J. Math. 21:491--567, 1977.
4
5
 
6
 
7
M. Benedetti. sKizzo: A suite to evaluate and certify QBFs. Proc. Int'l Conf. on Automated Deduction, 369--376, 2005.
 
8
9
 
10
11
 
12
S.S. Fedin and A.S. Kulikov. Automated proofs of upper bounds on the running time of splitting algorithms. J. Math. Sciences 134(5):2383--2391, 2006.
 
13
F.V. Fomin, F. Grandoni, and D. Kratsch. Measure and conquer: domination - a case study. Proc. ICALP, 191--203, 2005.
 
14
F.V. Fomin, F. Grandoni, and D. Kratsch. Some new techniques in design and analysis of exact (exponential) algorithms. Bulletin of the EATCS 87:47--77, 2005.
15
16
 
17
M. Garey, D. Johnson, and L. Stockmeyer. Some simplified NP-complete graph problems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 1:237--267, 1976.
18
 
19
 
20
T.C. Hales. A proof of the Kepler conjecture. Annals of Math. 162:1065--1185, 2005.
 
21
J. Hass and R. Schlafly. Double bubbles minimize. Annals of Math. 151:459--515, 2000.
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
R. Kannan. Towards separating nondeterminism from determinism. Mathematical Systems Theory 17(1):29--45, 1984.
 
26
27
28
 
29
C.W.H. Lam, L. Thiel, and S. Swiercz. The nonexistence of finite projective planes of order 10. Canad. J. Math. 41:1117--1123, 1989.
 
30
 
31
D. van Melkebeek. Time-space lower bounds for NP-complete problems. In Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science 265--291, World Scientific, 2004.
 
32
 
33
S.I. Nikolenko and A.V. Sirotkin. Worst-case upper bounds for SAT: automated proof. Proc. ESSLLI 225--232, 2003. URL: http://logic.pdmi.ras.ru/~sergey/
 
34
 
35
M. Robson. Finding a maximum independent set in time O (2n/4). Technical Report 1251-01, LaBRI, Université de Bordeaux I, 2001. URL: http://www.labri.fr/perso/robson/mis/techrep.html
 
36
W.J. Savitch. Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape classes. J. Comp. Sys. Sci. 4:177--192, 1970.
37
 
38
A.D. Scott and G.B. Sorkin. Linear-programming design and analysis of fast algorithms for Max 2-CSP. Discr. Optimization 4(3-4):260--287, 2007.
 
39
N.J.A. Sloane and S. Plouffe. The encyclopedia of integer sequences. Academic Press, 1995.
 
40
V. Strassen. Gaussian elimination is not optimal. Numer. Math. 13:354--356, 1969.
 
41
 
42
 
43
R. Williams. Automated proofs of time lower bounds. Manuscript available at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ryanw/projects.html.
 
44