A Note on Lavi, Mu'alem, and Nisan (2009, SCF)

Alexey Kushnir,Shuo Liu
2009-01-01
Abstract:= 2 + (x;y) ~ 162 P (x;y) in the second line on p. 418. However, this is incorrect because one can only conclude that = 2 + (x;y) ~62 P (x;y); it is still possible that = 2 + (x;y) ~ 1 belongs to the boundary of P (x;y), and hence also belongs to P (x;y). In the following, we will stick to the notations of the paper and provide a correct proof of this claim. Proof (of Claim 6): The rst part of the proof is correct; thus we only need to show
What problem does this paper attempt to address?