<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Reachability in Vector Addition Systems is Ackermann-complete · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.13866/</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/2104.13866/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Reachability in Vector Addition Systems is Ackermann-complete — mentioned by nyrikki</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48196396</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2104.13866:48196396</guid><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 17:30:06 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;As TLA+ uses state machines that can define infinite state spaces, checking arbitrary temporal logic formulas is undecidable in the general case. Using a TLC model checker to verify invariants or properties, finding a valid counterexample can scale non-elementarily. In fact, in some situations it can end up being Ackermann-complete[0], but even recursively enumerable problems can be Tower-complete. I would say that unless you focus on more detailed temporal logic pitfalls you may have issues. So IMHO this will stay a use case specific solution, that you choose based on context. Even a common…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.13866/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.FL</category></item><item><title>Reachability in Vector Addition Systems is Ackermann-complete — mentioned by hwayne</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43720809</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2104.13866:43720809</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:59:18 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Hmm.. I&amp;#x27;d love to see a more formal statement of this, because it feels unintuitive. The problem is called &amp;quot;Vector Addition System Reachability&amp;quot;, and the proof that it&amp;#x27;s Ackermann-complete is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.13866 (It&amp;#x27;s actually for &amp;quot;Vector Addition Systems with states, but the two are equivalent formalisms. They&amp;#x27;re also equivalent to Petri nets, which is what got me interested in this problem in the first place!) &amp;gt; Notably the question &amp;quot;given a number as input, output as many 1&amp;#x27;s as that number&amp;quot; is exponential in the input size. Is this problem therefore also strictly…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.13866/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.FL</category></item><item><title>Reachability in Vector Addition Systems is Ackermann-complete — mentioned by hwayne</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38522405</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2104.13866:38522405</guid><pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2023 20:10:40 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;If you&amp;#x27;re up for the challenge, the original paper proving ACK-completeness is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.13866.pdf&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.13866/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.FL</category></item></channel></rss>
