<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Regular Representations of Uniform TC^0 · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2309.06926/</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/2309.06926/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Regular Representations of Uniform TC^0 — mentioned by nyrikki</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42611979</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2309.06926:42611979</guid><pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2025 16:31:29 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Rice&amp;#x27;s theorem means you can&amp;#x27;t choose to decide if a program is correct, but you have to choose an error direction and accept the epislon. The Curry–Howard–Lambek correspondence is possibly a good tool to think about it. The reason I suggested graduate level complexity theory is because the undergrad curriculum is flawed in that it seems that you can use brute force with a TM to stimulate a NTM with NP. It is usually taught that NP is the set of decision problems that can be solved by a NTM in polynomial time. But you can completely drop the NTM and say it is the set of decision problems that…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2309.06926/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LO</category></item></channel></rss>
