<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Quadratic-Time Hardness of LCS and other Sequence Similarity Measures · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1501.07053/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1501.07053/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Quadratic-Time Hardness of LCS and other Sequence Similarity Measures — mentioned by zzazzdsa</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13984386</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1501.07053:13984386</guid><pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:37:21 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Unless my understanding of things is wrong, I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure that unless the strong exponential time hypothesis (essentially, n variable CNF-SAT takes O(2^n) time in the worst case) is false, no diff algorithm can run in subquadratic time. If you could, then you would be able to solve longest common subsequence in subquadatic time, and that in turn implies SETH being false by https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.07053 . I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure exact diff in subquadratic time is therefore impossible. It&amp;#x27;s still a nice heuristic though.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1501.07053/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CC</category></item></channel></rss>
