Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with computational-complexity
Search options not deleted
user 23508
This is a branch that includes: computational complexity theory; complexity classes, NP-completeness and other completeness concepts; oracle analogues of complexity classes; complexity-theoretic computational models; regular languages; context-free languages; Komolgorov Complexity and so on.
-4
votes
1
answer
220
views
What is the computationally simplest way to universally index the set of simple graphs?
If given a simple, integer-labeled, but not necessarily connected, graph $G := (V,E)$ consisting of at least one vertex, i.e. $\lvert \rvert V \lvert \rvert \geq 1$, then is there a function to unambi …
- 387
0
votes
What is the computationally simplest way to universally index the set of simple graphs?
I apologize in advance for my abuse of set notation as I am mapping one mathematical object that is not quite a set i.e. graphs to another mathematical object that is not quite a set i.e. sequences. F …
- 387