Re: Not constructive proof of existing of an algorithm
- From: "Yajun" <yalding@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Apr 2005 04:33:42 -0700
I somehow get the idea. Then we fall into another assumption that
sounds intuitive:
For fixed $d$, the set of "problematic subgraphs" can be computed in
finite steps only depend on $d$.
But I am curious about this assumption.
regards,
yalding
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Not constructive proof of existing of an algorithm
- From: Iron Bone
- Re: Not constructive proof of existing of an algorithm
- From: Mike Robson
- Re: Not constructive proof of existing of an algorithm
- From: googmeister
- Re: Not constructive proof of existing of an algorithm
- From: Yajun
- Re: Not constructive proof of existing of an algorithm
- From: Christian Kleinewaechter
- Not constructive proof of existing of an algorithm
- Prev by Date: Re: Not constructive proof of existing of an algorithm
- Next by Date: overall-longest-possible-path problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Not constructive proof of existing of an algorithm
- Next by thread: Re: Not constructive proof of existing of an algorithm
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|