Computational Complexity and other fun stuff in math and computer science from Lance Fortnow and Bill Gasarch
What a great opportunity to test Lance's previous (exceedingly funny) post "the seven dirty words you cannot say at the Complexity Conference."The number of times each word (or a variant) from Lance's List appears in a FOCS title:1. Constants: twice2. Algorithm: nine times3. Application: once4. Heuristic: never5. Competitive: never6. Implementation: never7. Wolfram: neverObviously Lance's List is strongly predictive -- with the striking exception of the still-popular word "algorithm".Why is "algorithm!" the exception? Does this mean that algorithm papers are on their way out, but are not extinct yet? Like pandas? :)
Algorithm is still somewhat an exception as Lance's list was for complexity and not focs.
I'm curious. Anyone knows what are almost-natural proofs?
try searching google.
As a follow-up, in a idle moment I looked for the most common words -- the non-rigorous result was a tie between "approximate" (with variants) and "bounds" (with variants) -- each with fourteen instances (never adjacently).Has FOCS therefore become a conference mainly about approximations and bounds?
Isn't it that both STOC and FOCS have always been mostly about approximations and bounds...