tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post116921737358951494..comments2024-03-27T19:58:17.387-05:00Comments on Computational Complexity: Proceedings PapersLance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1169400564735316652007-01-21T11:29:00.000-06:002007-01-21T11:29:00.000-06:00A follow-up to comment #7. For conferences with ll...A follow-up to comment #7. For conferences with llncs proceedings (e.g. Crypto and RANDOM/APPROX), I'd use the llncs style file with the fullpage package for the submission version (with a hack to increase the width of the abstract). I'd usually still have to edit the equations for the proceedings version, but at least the look-and-feel is preserved, and it's not as much work as with the two-column format.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1169379211688020082007-01-21T05:33:00.000-06:002007-01-21T05:33:00.000-06:00> Often, pressure to fit within a page limit> can ...> Often, pressure to fit within a page limit<BR/>> can improve a paper by forcing the<BR/>> author to concentrate on the essential<BR/>> point. That's my experience anyway,<BR/>> from quite a few years of editorial<BR/>> experience.<BR/><BR/>I agree. But it's hard to believe the ideal length for every result is exactly 10 pages (since nobody seems to use less than the max allowed).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1169353625594627232007-01-20T22:27:00.000-06:002007-01-20T22:27:00.000-06:00Agreeing with anonymous from comment #7. I have s...Agreeing with anonymous from comment #7. I have said previously and maintain there is no reason for the submission format and the final format to be different for conference submission; it is simply a big waste of time.Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06738274256402616703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1169347326218733852007-01-20T20:42:00.000-06:002007-01-20T20:42:00.000-06:00I don't particularly mind it when an author leaves...I don't particularly mind it when an author leaves technical details for the full paper; after all, a good conference paper is about the ideas, not the details.<BR/><BR/>What I *do* mind is the immense waste of time it takes to 1) prepare a single-column version that fits in exactly 10 pages, and then 2) prepare a double-columned version for the proceedings, typically at great expense to readibility, and forcing me and my coauthors to fiddle with the typesetting of all nontrivial equations. <BR/><BR/>How many person-hours per year does the theory community waste on this typographical acrobatics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1169343510594581192007-01-20T19:38:00.000-06:002007-01-20T19:38:00.000-06:00"Proof omitted for lack of concern.""Proof omitted..."Proof omitted for lack of concern."<BR/><BR/>"Proof omitted until author has tenure."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1169319026339797402007-01-20T12:50:00.000-06:002007-01-20T12:50:00.000-06:00I have often been tempted to write "proof omitted ...I have often been tempted to write "proof omitted for lack of time..." or, better yet, "proof omitted for lack of patience" (if it's an obvious proof).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1169283416677501052007-01-20T02:56:00.000-06:002007-01-20T02:56:00.000-06:00Often, pressure to fit within a page limit can imp...Often, pressure to fit within a page limit can improve a paper by forcing the author to concentrate on the essential point. That's my experience anyway, from quite a few years of editorial experience.<BR/><BR/>Of course, my own ideas are much too important to be subjected to such constraints :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1169243201498182722007-01-19T15:46:00.000-06:002007-01-19T15:46:00.000-06:00The first person to say `Proof omited for space' p...<I> The first person to say `Proof omited for space' probably Fermat, but thats not really fair since they were private notes.</I><BR/><BR/>But Fermat is not credited for his proof that was omitted for space - it's not clear how many people believe he actually had one. By contrast, people do get credit for their conference papers which omit details, even when the full version never makes an appearance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1169237961112252592007-01-19T14:19:00.000-06:002007-01-19T14:19:00.000-06:00I hate the phrase "A full proof will be available ...I hate the phrase "A full proof will be available in the full paper" when one doesn't exist. <BR/><BR/>What doesn't exists? The full proof or the paper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1169231105047727362007-01-19T12:25:00.000-06:002007-01-19T12:25:00.000-06:00If we go to CD authors can no longer say``Proof om...If we go to CD authors can no longer say<BR/>``Proof ommitted for space''. That sounds<BR/>great, unless you are the author and don't<BR/>want to write down the details yet.<BR/><BR/>The first person to say `Proof omited for<BR/>space' probably Fermat, but thats not<BR/>really fair since they were private notes.GASARCHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06134382469361359081noreply@blogger.com