about how calling things that are on You-Tube rare is odd
since ITS ON YOU-TUBE! ANYONE in the world can look at it!
I now have a Contrasting thought: Can something be
well known if its not easily found on the web?
Last week I
a proof that the intersection of a CFL and a REG lang
is CFL that did not use PDA's. I thought it was NOT new and indeed, the
comments politely gave me the proper reference.
So far, so good. But wait--- some of them called the proof Well Known.
Can a proof be well known if its not on the web?
The notion of a proof being well known has always been problematic
since one wonders what the scope is.
being commutative is well known but might not
to my 5-year old niece.
Someone emailed me that I should take this opp to teach her
about noncommutative algebras.
- Binary search is well known but might not be known to my (then)
8 year old great nephew.
Some said I should use this opp to teach him logarithms.
- Induction is a well known technique but it still puzzles some undergraduates.i
- The poly vdw theorem
is well known among mathematically inclined
high school students in Maryland but
is not even that well known among combinatorists.
- Should we redefine our definition of
- If I were to make an article out of the three short notes on CFL's
that I posted about, and submit to Math Archives,
would that help the problem of what is easy to find
or would it just clutter up Math Archives making things hard to find.
(I would of course provide all references and make NO claim to
- Should I post to Wikipedia?
- Will the web ever replace
asking someone who knows stuff?