Jump to content

Talk:Schaefer's dichotomy theorem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edemaine (talk | contribs) at 00:01, 17 November 2023 (Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMathematics Stub‑class Low‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.
WikiProject iconComputer science Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

I replaced the reference to the Bulatov-Dalmau paper with the reference to the Creignou-Hermann paper, where dichotomy result for counting boolean CSP appears first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.55.176.1 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That’s right. However, the section needs more reorganization: the Creignou and Hermann #SAT dichotomy is simply that the affine case is in P, and everything else is #P-complete. The stuff about Mal'tsev polynomials (which comes from the Bulatov and Dalmau paper) is only relevant for non-Boolean CSP’s, but then it is no longer a sufficient condition.—Emil J. 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a crack at this reorganization, splitting into binary and nonbinary paragraphs and citing the relevant paper in each. Erik Demaine (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]