Timeline for Understanding a part of Friedberg’s Priority Argument Paper
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12, 2019 at 19:11 | comment | added | Patrick Lutz | I think this question is better suited to math stackexchange. I have answered the related question that you asked there and also tried to add a few helpful references. | |
| S Dec 11, 2019 at 5:01 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Dec 11, 2019 at 5:01 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Dec 5, 2019 at 4:13 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan | @Wojowu Also, can you take a look at my question here? math.stackexchange.com/q/3456777/71829 | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 4:28 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan | I'll think about that $a$ and $e$ point, but in the mean time can you explain why $f_2^{a-1}$ and $f_2$ disagreeing on one of the first $e$ values implies that $x_1^a$ would be increased at some later stage? | |
| Dec 3, 2019 at 10:58 | comment | added | Wojowu | It seems to me that what Friedberg is trying to argue is that (in his notation) $f_2^{a-1}$ and $f_2$ agree on the first $e$ arguments (which is correct, as otherwise $x_1^a(e)$ would be increased at some later stage). However what I don't see is how this doesn't falsify the statement, because the relevant statement in Subcase 1.1 only guarantees the computation accesses the first $a$, not $e$, elements of the oracle. | |
| S Dec 3, 2019 at 3:36 | history | bounty started | Keshav Srinivasan | ||
| S Dec 3, 2019 at 3:36 | history | notice added | Keshav Srinivasan | Draw attention | |
| Dec 1, 2019 at 14:39 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan | @GerhardPaseman Does my edit make things clearer? | |
| Dec 1, 2019 at 3:26 | history | edited | Keshav Srinivasan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2019 at 3:20 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan | @GerhardPaseman You’re right, I made the changes you suggested. | |
| Dec 1, 2019 at 3:19 | history | edited | Keshav Srinivasan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 974 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2019 at 2:56 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | You don't define phi,, you don't talk about the place in the Lemma where you get stuck (I assume there is such a place), and you don't state the goal of the theorem in terms of the modem notation. It is hard to give you any help in these circumstances. Gerhard "Where Is The Priority Here?" Paseman, 2019.11.30. | |
| Dec 1, 2019 at 2:00 | history | edited | Keshav Srinivasan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2019 at 1:55 | history | asked | Keshav Srinivasan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |