<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>No occurrence obstructions in geometric complexity theory · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1604.06431/</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/1604.06431/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>No occurrence obstructions in geometric complexity theory — mentioned by j2kun</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316169</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1604.06431:13316169</guid><pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 06:42:20 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;There is a large, emerging body of research in which one proves the impossibility of solving problem A by finding an algorithm for solving a different problem B. For Mulmuley et al. (it&amp;#x27;s been a while since I was in the thick of this) it&amp;#x27;s finding an algorithm for computing a particular decomposition of a representation[1] having to do with determinants and permanents. This essentially shows the matrix permanent formula can&amp;#x27;t be written as a determinant of a small matrix (of smaller formulas of the variables), which is the &amp;quot;algebraic&amp;quot; analogue of P vs NP, and which Mulmuley et al. believe…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1604.06431/"&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>
