22 Mar
2004
22 Mar
'04
2:05 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:41:52AM -0800, JP Bernardy wrote:
Can you derive a counter-example from the demonstration bug?
Counter-example of what? The claim is that there's a bug in the proof that concatenating trees (the concat3 function in Adams' paper) is efficient; do you want a pair of trees that take a long time to concatenate with that algorithm, or do you want counterexamples to the claim? To tell the truth, after looking at the tech report ( http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~adams/BB/92-10.ps.gz ), I don't see a proof that concat3 is efficient, so I don't see how there can be a bug in the (missing) proof. Robert Will, can you clarify which claim in the paper is faulty? Peace, Dylan Thurston