This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
I propose to make this page about ACC0, i.e., the constant-depth version of ACC. The literature is confused about if ACC0 = ACC, but there are almost no papers written about ACC (except those that actually about ACC0). Revert me if you disagree. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago, this article was about ACC as a the union of a hierarchy of classes. The reference for that definition was Vollmer (p.126). I checked that reference, and Vollmer does not use ACC in that way, which is why I removed all mention of it when I unilaterally changed what this article should be about. (Another, perhaps better, reason is that ACC, defined as a hierarchy, coincides with AC (and TC and NC), so it’s a really bad class.) EmilJ put it back in, but now that usage is unsourced. I can’t find a good source myself, so: who uses ACC as the union of ACC^i ? Thore Husfeldt (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I can't find any source either, now that you mention it. I basically restored the sentence to be on the safe side, but maybe it's better to delete it after all.—EmilJ.15:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
