Bounds on the Satisfiability Threshold for Power Law Distributed Random SAT — mentioned by abetusk

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 19:05:06 GMT

As others mentioned, the link is broken. A quick look at the author's GitHub or HN profile doesn't have anything jump out at me. I will mention that there was a paper from 2017 on "Bounds on the Satisfiability Threshold for Power Law Distributed Random SAT" that constructed what looks very nearly like a phase diagram for satisfiable instances of SAT. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.08431

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Bounds on the Satisfiability Threshold for Power Law Distributed Random SAT — mentioned by abetusk

Sat, 31 Jan 2026 03:48:08 GMT

I think you have it wrong. Wolfram's claim is that for a wide array of small (s,k) (including s <= 4, k <= 3), there's complex behavior and a profusion of (provably?) Turing machine equivalent (TME) machines. At the end of the article, Wolfram talks about awarding a prize in 2007 for a proof that (s=2,k=3) was TME. The `s` stands for states and `k` for colors, without talking at all about tape length. One way to say "principle of computational equivalence" is that "if it looks complex, it probably is". That is, TME is the norm, rather than the exception. If true, this probably means that you…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Bounds on the Satisfiability Threshold for Power Law Distributed Random SAT · HackerPapers discussions

Bounds on the Satisfiability Threshold for Power Law Distributed Random SAT — mentioned by abetusk

Bounds on the Satisfiability Threshold for Power Law Distributed Random SAT — mentioned by abetusk