Abstract
This is the final part of a 2-part column on the future of computational complexity theory. The grounds rules were that the contributors had no restrictions (except a 1-page limit). For readers interested in more formal reports, in addition to the two URLs mentioned in the previous issue (ftp://ftp.cs.washington.edu/tr/1996/O3/UW-CSE-96-O3-O3.PS.Z and http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/-oded/toc-sp.html) I would also point to the recent "Strategic Directions" report (http://geisel.csl.uiuc.edu/-loui/complete.html).Coming during the next few issues: the search for the perfect theory journal; Thomas Jefferson exposed as a theoretical computer scientist; and Mitsunori Ogihara's survey of DNA-based computation. (The "Lance Fortnow in a clown suit" article promised in the previous column actually ran stand-alone last issue due to scheduling; it probably is still available at a library near you!) Finally, some recent work by Edith Hemaspaandra, Harald Hempel, and myself, and of Buhrman and Fortnow, partially resolves one of the open questions from Complexity Theory Column 11.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
