User talk:134.191.232.81
EDIT: this is irrelevant. As was pointed out on SE, my proof only showed that a specific automaton cannot be converted from Rabin to Parity by changing the condition, but it is possible that a different automaton with parity condition could be built that accepts the same language.
I think I've found a problem in the Parity (or Rabin) acceptance condition definitions.
[edit]Hi, I think I've found a way to prove that the currently defined Rabin and Parity acceptance conditions are not equivalent. Here's my proof on SE: https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/48505/is-wikipedias-definition-of-parity-acceptance-condition-for-omega-automaton-cor
Can anyone confirm/reject my proof?
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |