HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rick@sq.sq.com (Rick Innis)
Subject: Re: Dan Bricklin Demo II and Protoscreens
Summary: Pencil'n'paper, winterp
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:40:03 GMT

In article <3674@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:

>What other tools do people use, especially for X UIs?

I use pencil and paper for first drafts.  What follows from that depends on
the environment.  On Macs I've used HyperCard and Prototyper; under X I'm
very fond of Neils Mayer's WINTERP (Widget Interpreter) for rapid iterative
prototying.  This is an XLISP interpreter with the Motif widget set embedded
as XLISP objects.  It lacks some Xt and Xlib functionality, though the
missing features could be added - just a Small Matter of Programming :-)
What I find really attractive is that in Winterp you can add callbacks and
try them out, which most builders don't accomodate.  Of course, you do also
need to know LISP, which many people might consider a disadvantage.  And
you're restricted to Motif, though there's no reason Winterp couldn't be
ported to other widget sets as well. 

	--Rick.
From: atwoodj@CS.ORST.EDU (John Atwood)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: MAC eject disk into trash issue
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:31:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: flop.1e9p2eINN5qv
Organization: Computer Science Department, Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: storm.cs.orst.edu

In what way is that simpler?  As I scan my menus now, command-Y is not
_Put Away_, but _Send 'Process Interrupt'  How can I remember which comand-Y,
and why Y (apologies to Budweiser).

All in fun,

John
From: akm@atlantix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Mouse-warping considered harmful
Date: 21 Nov 92 07:22:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Nov21.072246.25536
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

>In article 1ef01cINNpo4@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU, atwoodj@CS.ORST.EDU (John Atwood) writes:
> >What's _mouse warping_?
>[...]
>For example, a popup is displayed and you are required to respond by
>pushing a button. The system anticipates your response and moves the
>pointer to the button ready for you to push it.

I agree. I have been doing a series of experiments involving the
Fitts' Law evaluation of pointing devices. The program required
subjects to click in a square, then in a circle. We measure the time
between the two clicks. In order to prevent there being two sets of
learnig going on, we center the cursor in the square prior to the
start of every trial.

While this is necessry for us because of the experimental conditions,
most of my subjects have found it very irritating, and they tend to
make large corrective movements bringing the cursor 'back' to the
square. This is, of course, a problem because the cursor is already in
the square, and all such movement takes it out of the square.

I think that what happens is that subjects/users expect the cursor to
be under *their* control, and moving it messes up whatever cognitive
picture they have of that control. 

A side issue is that if a bunch of target circles appear, say,
generally to the left of the starting square, the mouse tends to go
off to the edge of the table/mouse pad. This is inconvenient. If,
however, they had to reposition the cursor on their own, this would
not happen. 

They do, however, get used to the repositioning action...

cheers,

kartik
-- 
If you quote my article remember to trim it down to the essentials.
Anant Kartik Mithal, 				akm@cs.uoregon.edu
Network Manager, Ph.D. Student			(503)346-3989
Comp. Science, U of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403  	(503)346-5373 (fax)
From: jharuni@micrognosis.co.uk (Jonathan Haruni)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Interesting Elevator HF error:
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:44:05 GMT
Organization: Micrognosis International, London

We had new elevators installed in our building about a year ago, and there
are a couple of interesting HF errors with them.  (This has nothing to do
with the red/green light story):

1) There were three elevators.  Two of them had the buttons on the right side,
   and the third had them on the left.  Buttons were in two vertical rows, and
   for some reason, the odd elevator had its two rows reversed.  I suppose
   someone decided that certain buttons should be on the "in" side and others
   on the "out" side.  Anyway, people were generally used to having the "hold
   doors open" button on the LEFT so whenever someone in the odd elevator
   tried to be polite and hold the doors open for someone, they often ended
   up shutting the doors on their nose, then saying, "Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry,"
   and reaching for the buttons a second time and _doing it again_ !!!   Clearly
   left/right is a more intuitive thing to remember than towards/away from the
   inside of the elevator.

   (A similar argument has been made for British versions of European cars,
    which have the turn-signal handle on the left and the wipers handle on
    the right, just like the European versions, even though that means you
    have to signal and change gears with the same hand !  I think the true
    argument for this arrangement is that they only have to manufacture one
    kind of steering column.)

2) These elevators have little two-digit LED displays in them to show you what
   floor you're on  (instead of 32 separate lights.)   But the elevators
   were very fast ones, and the displays, while in motion, showed which floor
   the elevator was next capable of stopping on, which at full speed, was three
   floors way.  I found there were three attitudes to this, and my overall
   impression was very negative.
   i) Technically-minded people, including myself, thought  'Hey, neat.'
   Once I figured it out, I could actually see the elevator's acceleration curve.
   As the elevator passed the first three floors, the display went through six
   in a non-linear way.  Most people, however, did not find such things quite
   as fascinating.
   ii) Most employees of the building got used to it, but never figured it
   out, so simply passed off the display as being wrong and ignored it.
   iii) Visitors to the building, especially on the way back down, always
   looked terrified when the display went "..5..4..3..2.." and the elevator
   was still going full speed, and then teeth were clenched as the display went
   "..1..Ground" and the elevator was STILL going full speed.  The display
   continued to show "ground" while the elevator decelerated through three
   floors, and you could see some people checking their pants as they got off.
From: ajm@seg.npl.co.uk (Tony Mansfield)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Silence on P=NP
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:05:08 GMT
Organization: National Physical Laboratory, UK

I have tried the Swart+Gismondi graph isomorphism algorithm on the
non-isomorphic graphs G1 = {{1,2},{1,2},{2,3}} and G2 = {{1,2},{1,3},{2,3}}
which have adjacency matrices (020) and (011).  Using the terms of their paper
                              (201)     (101)
                              (010)     (110)
"A polynomial-time procedure for resolving the graph isomorphism problem"
(/pub/theory/isomorph.ps.Z received from smowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca by ftp)
        T = 0.5*(100 000 000) + 0.5*(100 000 000) 
                (010 000 000)       (001 000 000)
                (001 000 000)       (010 000 000)
                (000 100 000)       (000 000 100)
                (000 010 000)       (000 000 001)
                (000 001 000)       (000 000 010)
                (000 000 100)       (000 100 000)
                (000 000 010)       (000 001 000)
                (000 000 001)       (000 010 000)
is a linear combination of two Q matrices and satisfies all the constraints
(3), (4) and (6).  Moreover
      T (020 201 010)^t = (011 101 110)^t
so (5) is satisfied too, showing(?) G1 and G2 to be isomorphic!

Tony Mansfield,   <ajm@seg.npl.co.uk>             Phone: (+44) 81 943 7029
DITC, NPL, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 OLW, UK.      Fax: (+44) 81 977 7091
From: jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Summary: I'd bet that P=NP.
Keywords: complexity
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:16:04 GMT
Reply-To: Joe Keane <jgk@osc.com>
Organization: Versant Object Technology, Menlo Park, CA
Weather: partly cloudy, high 66, low 50
Moon-Phase: waning crescent (32% of full)

In article <Nov.16.03.59.05.1992.2368@remus.rutgers.edu>
clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>Anyone who believes P=NP is an idiot.

Well, count me in.

In article <Nov.16.16.59.47.1992.6436@remus.rutgers.edu>
clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>Sure, but P=NP and P<>NP are certainly not equally likely.  The a priori
>evidence that P<>NP is *overwhelming*;

What evidence?!  What we have is literally hundreds of problems that occur
naturally in a wide variety of subjects.  We've proven that these problems are
all equivalent to each other (or maybe harder in some cases).  If anything,
this makes it more likely that they're all in P than if they were independent.

For evidence, all i want is someone to show me *one* problem with a good
argument why it's likely to be in NP\P.  I don't care if the problem occurs
naturally or it's totally contrived.  So far i've not seen anything like this.

>to claim that P=NP has a chance of being true is worse than claiming that
>there is a chance of only a finite number of twin primes existing.  Both are
>unproven, but there are *very* strong reasons for believing them to be true.

No way; i think that the twin primes conjecture is very safe.  Most arguments
from the P!=NP folks seem pretty lame, usually something like ``Well, if P=NP,
it seems very weird to us, and we'd have to re-think a lot of stuff.''

>So strong that anyone who believes otherwise must be either ignorant or a
>crackpot.

I'll take `crackpot', thanks.

In article <PHR.92Nov15215202@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
writes:
>Most theorists think P!=NP, but some very sharp mathematicians think
>factoring is in P.

This is an interesting example.  It's probably the simplest problem you can
describe where it seems very hard to find a solution, but once found it's easy
for anyone to verify.  Note that for a long time the best factoring algorithms
ran in exponential time.

I think it's likely that we can factor in polynomial time, although i won't
try to defend this either.  Anyway, i doubt that anyone's close to proving
that it's impossible, which would prove that P!=NP.  Of course finding a
polynomial factoring algorithm wouldn't prove that P=NP.  But it's some
interesting evidence that things may not be as hard as they seem.

--
Joe Keane, amateur mathematician
jgk@osc.com (uunet!amdcad!osc!jgk)
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:06:08 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

Quoting bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) in article <1992Nov17.155308.25712@bnr.ca>:
>In article <Nov.16.16.59.47.1992.6436@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>>
>>Sure, but P=NP and P<>NP are certainly not equally likely.  
>
>Of course; one is true (probability = 1) and the other false
>(probability = 0).

These are informal probablilities, not statistical ones.  They boil down
to "I'll bet you ten to one that P != NP".  In other words, they're
indications of people's certainty.  Treat it as if we're arguing what
odds the bookies should be giving.

Are there any bookies who'll let me place a bet on this?
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
From: jmr@cs.anu.edu.au (Mike Robson)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Silence on P=NP
Date: 24 Nov 1992 10:40:25 +1100
Organization: Computer Science Department, ANU, Australia
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: nunki.anu.edu.au

jmr@cs.anu.edu.au (Mike Robson) writes:

>leen@fwi.uva.nl (Leen Torenvliet) writes:

>>orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:

>>>The silence on the Swart & Gismondi proof of P=NP is deafening.
>>>Will no one venture an opinion?  My knowledge of linear programming
>>>is insufficient to the task.

>>So is about everybody's it seems. I guess we're all waiting for some

>   If noone out there has understood the argument well enough yet to accept it
>   or point out a flaw, why don't we pool our efforts to try and elucidate it?

>   Here's my comment to start the ball rolling:
>      I am trying to understand the Graph Isomorphism paper first since that is the
>      basis for the other two; I am fine as far as the end of page 5 where they talk
>      about `a larger convex set $C_1$'. This seems to be the definition of $C_1$
>      which crops up again significantly but I don't know which `larger convex set'
>      it is supposed to be. Anybody like to clarify?


Let me follow up my own article with another query:


At the top of page 10 we are told (without proof) that every solution to
F3 can be represented as  a linear combination of the $q$ vectors (with sum
of coefficients equal to 1). Should this be obvious to me or is it the
conclusion of some deep argument?

It seems to me that the space spanned by these $q$ vectors should have the
same dimension as that spanned by the original permutation matrices, namely
(n-1)^2+1 (since any n by n matrix is in the space provided all row and column
sums are the same). But we know (page 8) that F3 is a formulation involving
OMEGA(n^6) variables and O(n^5) constraints so I would expect its solution space
to have dimension OMEGA(n^6) if it isn't empty. 

What is the simple point I am missing here?



>Dr J. M. (Mike) Robson,
>Department of Computer Science,
>Australian National University,
>GPO Box 4,
>Canberra, ACT 2601,
>Australia.

>Tel: [61] 6-2494001
>Fax: [61] 6-2490010
>email: jmr@cs.anu.edu.au

Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.math,sci.crypt
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:36:40 GMT

In article <Nov.16.16.59.47.1992.6436@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>Sure, but P=NP and P<>NP are certainly not equally likely.  The a priori
>evidence that P<>NP is *overwhelming*; to claim that P=NP has a chance
>of being true is worse than claiming that there is a chance of only a
>finite number of twin primes existing.  Both are unproven, but there are
>*very* strong reasons for believing them to be true.  So strong that
>anyone who believes otherwise must be either ignorant or a crackpot.

If one perturbs the definition of primality slightly while retaining
its basic statistical characteristics (mean, variance) then one can
actually prove such theorems as "There are infinitely many twin primes"
and "Every even number > 3 is the sum of two primes" (Goldbach's
conjecture) without much difficulty.  (I believe "lucky" numbers
provide an instance of this general principle.)  In these proofs the
statistical evidence is overwhelming, encouraging one to assign
extraordinary odds to the failure of Goldbach's conjecture.

(I will with no misgivings bet you ten thousand dollars at a thousand
to one odds that no counterexample to Goldbach's conjecture will appear
in the next ten years.  If one is found I owe you ten thousand dollars,
otherwise you owe me ten dollars.  Anyone who's played for a while with
Goldbach's conjecture will see that this is very easy money for me.)

There is *no* comparable statistical evidence for either P=NP or
P!=NP.  The evidence to date for P!=NP is that a lot of people have
looked for a fast algorithm for the generic NP problem and failed.  If
you ask me what evidence there is to date for P=NP I will reply that an
even larger set of people have looked for a proof of P!=NP and failed.
If we judge these arguments only by the extent of the search in each
case, an otherwise disinterested bettor would say that the a priori
evidence that P=NP is *overwhelming*.

Moshe Vardi has made P=NP his odds-on favorite, I admit I'm a
conservative old coward in sticking to even odds.
-- 
Vaughan Pratt	  		A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.
Newsgroups: comp.theory
From: acoggins@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Adam Cody Coggins)
Subject: Re: Human Computers....
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:37:26 GMT

In article <3739@creatures.cs.vt.edu> sahle@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Eskinder Sahle) writes:
>Hello all:
>
>I need some help....  I'm looking for examples in fiction literature
>of super sophisticated communicative computers a la HAL. That is,
> [...]

Try _Speaker for the Dead_ by Orson Scott Card (sequel to _Ender's Game_; 
and there is a third book, _Xenocide_.)  They are quite good reads for the
sake of character development, ideas, and plot, IMHO.

	Cody Coggins <acoggins@phoenix.princeton.edu>


Xref: sparky comp.theory:2506 sci.math:15370 sci.crypt:5189
From: gene@cs.bu.edu (Gene Itkis)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.math,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:07:06 GMT
Followup-To: comp.theory
Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: gene@csd

In article <1992Nov22.171847.27106@athena.mit.edu> patl@athena.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti) writes:
>
>Isn't it true that, with respect to a random oracle, P!=NP with
>probability 1?

There has been a number of fairly recent results contradicting the random
oracle conjecture. Basically, these results indicate that the "statistical
evidence" from the random oracle is not very reliable. The results include
IP=PSPACE, MIP=NEXPTIME and others (these theorems are false with respect to
random oracle with prob 1, but true in the absence of oracles).

-- 
 ---
	Gene Itkis		(gene@cs.bu.edu)
Xref: sparky comp.theory:2465 sci.math:15212 sci.crypt:5000
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.math,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:26:07 GMT
Followup-To: comp.theory
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Nov17.043640.5525@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
  Vaughan Pratt writes:

> Moshe Vardi has made P=NP his odds-on favorite,

I'll bet $10000 to his $1000.

> I admit I'm a conservative old coward in sticking to even odds.

Same for you.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
Newsgroups: comp.theory
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:37:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.171847.27106@athena.mit.edu> patl@athena.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti) writes:
>
>Isn't it true that, with respect to a random oracle, P!=NP with
>probability 1?

The same argument with "set of Gods" in place of "oracle" proves the
existence of a God.  There are infinitely many possible sets of Gods,
only one of which is the empty set.  Hence with probability 1 there is
a God.

See you in church.  :-)


With regard to the analogy with Goldbach's conjecture, I believe the
number of representations of 2n by a sum of two primes is close to that
expected statistically, certainly for as far out as this test has been
conducted (anyone have concrete figures on this?).  Since this hit rate
grows at something like n/log^2 n, the probability of getting 0 hits
for some value of 2n instead of the expected n/log^2 n hits, out beyond
where the conjecture is currently known to hold, can be calculated
quite explicitly to be a certain *very* miniscule yet definitely nonzero
number.

The corresponding statistics for random oracles are rendered
meaningless by the arbitrariness of the measure chosen for their
distribution.  For Goldbach there is no arbitrariness in the measure,
the set of primes below 2n consists of around 2n/log n primes with a
quite well (though not perfectly) understood distribution.


In article <102829@bu.edu> gene@cs.bu.edu (Gene Itkis) writes:
>There has been a number of fairly recent results contradicting the random
>oracle conjecture. Basically, these results indicate that the "statistical
>evidence" from the random oracle is not very reliable. The results include
>IP=PSPACE, MIP=NEXPTIME and others (these theorems are false with respect to
>random oracle with prob 1, but true in the absence of oracles).

I overheard at FOCS that Juris Hartmanis has recently been marshalling
further arguments of this type against the significance of
relativization results to P=NP, which I'm looking forward to seeing.
-- 
Vaughan Pratt	  		A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.math,sci.crypt
From: nrswart@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (nr swart)
Subject: Research Reports by Prof. E.R. Swart
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:17:29 GMT

Due to the overwhelming number of requests for the three research reports
on the P=NP matter we have decided that the best plan will be to post them.

They will be posted in the newsgroup comp.theory this evening in postscript
format. Assuming all goes well, this should allow everyone who requested
copies to have them by Tuesday.

Despite the large number of e-mail messages received by Prof. Swart, he
will do his best to reply to as many of you as time permits.

Prof. Swart thanks everyone for all their encouragement.

Nicholas R. Swart
Dept. of Elec. and Comp. Engineering
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario
CANADA 
N2L 3G1

Xref: sparky comp.theory:2437 sci.crypt:4865
From: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:01:27 GMT
Reply-To: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Followup-To: comp.theory
Organization: Ember---private system

In article <Nov.16.03.59.05.1992.2368@remus.rutgers.edu>
clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:

>Anyone who believes P=NP is an idiot.
>
>Case closed.
>-- 
>Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

I'm not sure exactly what Chris meant by this comment.  If he meant,
"Anyone who believes it has been PROVEN that P=NP is an idiot",
his statement is probably justifiable (though excessively strong).

If he means that anyone who believes P MIGHT be equal to NP is "an
idiot", then I think Chris should retract his statement.

The problem is open.

Anyone who believes an open problem is beyond doubt is, to use
Chris's own terminology, an idiot.  The words "open problem" mean
the issue is debatable.  An argument that would convince experts
in the area that there is no doubt would be, by definition, a proof.

Of course, most theoreticians have strong opinions on this very
important topic, but this is hardly the same thing as saying that
P=NP beyond any doubt.

I personally would be as sceptical of proofs that P != NP as I
would be of proofs that P = NP.  Given the effort that has been
expended in the past, any new "proof" in the area is more likely
to contain fatal errors than to resolve the question.

- Paul Colley
University:  colley@qucis.queensu.ca
Home:        pacolley@ember.uucp   watmath!ember!pacolley  +1 613 545 3807
<Ring> [...] "Sorry, I'm all booked up." "Who was that?" "The library." - B.C.

Newsgroups: comp.theory
From: jgn@homebrew.bellcore.com (Joseph G. Niederberger)
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Reply-To: jgn@homebrew.UUCP (Joseph G. Niederberger)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:01:12 GMT

In article <Bxvuu8.5KE@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:

>to "I'll bet you ten to one that P != NP".  In other words, they're
>indications of people's certainty.  Treat it as if we're arguing what
>odds the bookies should be giving.
>
>Are there any bookies who'll let me place a bet on this?

Sure, but there are just two rules:

(1) All bets payed cash in advance to yours truly,

(2) No payout until the issue is settled one way or the other and is beyond
any ability to question the proof or the principles the proof rests on.

Cheers,

Joe N.