It brought back memories of the early 90s when I would often head to the
Math/CS library at the University of Chicago to track down some conference or journal paper. Now we just click and download but you miss finding something else interesting in the proceedings or the stacks in general.
That's how I wrote it nearly four decades ago, without proof just an intuition why it works. Those were the days. I did work out the full covariance argument in the journal version though I missed other bugs in the proof.
The upper bound requires the verifier to have a random sample of the distribution unknown to the prover. Rahul Santhanam, who is hosting my visit to Oxford, asked if the converse was known. Goldreich, Vadhan and Wigderson, in the appendix of their Laconic Prover paper, show a sampling protocol based on the upper bound on the size of a set, though the sample is not completely unknown to the prover. Neat to revisit questions from my first conference paper.
 |
| Oxford CS Librarian Aza Ballard-Whyte |
> Now we just click and download but you miss finding something else interesting in the proceedings or the stacks in general.
ReplyDeleteIt is different now, but many online journals let you do things like read other related works or other works by the author or their co-authors with a simple click from an article's page, or see suggested related papers. Could this be seen as more powerful than the nostalgic seeing of a few other books or proceedings next to the one you were to the library to find?
More powerful but rarely used. It's the accidental discover that I miss.
DeleteLiving brains dedicate enormous processing resources to maintain situational awareness and to seek out any incremental benefit to aid survival, the underlying reason we get so easily distracted with electronic devices; being in the midst of a book shelf allows the brain to shift processing resources away from everyday survival allowing (at least for me) to focus more deeply on exploration.
Delete