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?
What a great opportunity to test Lance's previous (exceedingly funny) post "the seven dirty words you cannot say at the Complexity Conference."
ReplyDeleteThe number of times each word (or a variant) from Lance's List appears in a FOCS title:
1. Constants: twice
2. Algorithm: nine times
3. Application: once
4. Heuristic: never
5. Competitive: never
6. Implementation: never
7. Wolfram: never
Obviously 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.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious. Anyone knows what are almost-natural proofs?
ReplyDeletetry searching google.
ReplyDeleteAs 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).
ReplyDeleteHas 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...
ReplyDelete