<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The minimal hitting set generation problem: algorithms and computation · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1601.02939/</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/1601.02939/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The minimal hitting set generation problem: algorithms and computation — mentioned by eesmith</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35930334</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1601.02939:35930334</guid><pubDate>Sat, 13 May 2023 17:05:46 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not criticizing. I think less than an order of magnitude from an off-the-head memory is just fine. And after 10 years, computers have gotten more powerful. ;) I misread the paper. I think is saying that finding the minimal size is NP-complete. Here&amp;#x27;s the abstract: &amp;quot;The hitting set problem is computationally hard; it is one of Karp’s 21 classic NP-complete problems. A standard backtracking algorithm for finding hitting sets would not be fast enough to search for a 16-clue sudoku puzzle exhaustively, even at today’s supercomputer speeds.&amp;quot; For context, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.02939.pdf…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1601.02939/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DS</category></item></channel></rss>
