ChichiriMuyo posted...
So again, as is proper ettiquite in EVERY field the author should have made it clear with the first usage what each term stands for - because that's how EVERYBODY else in their right mind does these things - and failing to do so is the mark of a poorly written paper. Again, the reasearch may be very good, I'm still making heads or tails of it.
But more to the point, even if you were right about NP not being one of the most famous things in Computer Science, you're STILL COMPLETELY WRONG.
Bear in mind, I have no degrees in CS, and I understood the above abstract just fine. Which is highly surprising, because most abstracts aren't like that to me.
A quick google search:
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v6/n2/abs/nphys1504.html
Bear in mind, I basically have a dual bachelor's degree in math and physics, and my Graduate thesis was in algebraic topology. I really couldn't tell you what's going on in that abstract.
http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/lattimer/PHY599/abstracts/abstract_Tien.pdf
This one is a little better, but I'd certainly need to google multiple terms if I wanted any hope of understanding everything in this abstract.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7053/abs/nature03932.html
This is moving into physical chemistry now, so I'm a little more out of my depth; actually able to pick up the gist of it, but certainly missing a lot of major terms.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/096317905X26183/abstract
Actually, I completely understood this abstract. But I wouldn't have if I hadn't just gone to a talk on the big five.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567897
Yeah, this one isn't too bad. Definitely a couple terms there I don't know, granted.
http://www.computer.org/csdl/trans/td/2011/12/ttd2011121978-abs.html
Wasn't even searching for a CS one. Oh hey, they mention polynomial time!
http://math.unc.edu/Faculty/assani/ErgWork07/DMauldin07.pdf
There's one or two terms there I don't understand for sure, but most of it is pretty clear.
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~pt/ASD/dedras.pdf
Ooooh, that paper looks sexy, I kinda want to read it. Though again, one or two undefined terms there I don't recognize. "Overt" jumps to mind, here. Also, it references "Moore" without saying who he or she is (presumably someone else who had a different computational construction?)
So...all things considered, I find the abstract linked in the topic title to be ridiculously simple and easy to read. I don't know what magical Christmasland you live in where abstracts are supposed to be easier than that--that's like...ridiculously easy and straightforward by abstract standards.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision