YouTube video by Setcover Mustermann

YouTube video by Setcover Mustermann

@Minus14Junge @twatschi @skalubuntu1 Leinöl getränkte Gewebe gehören danach in z.B. einem Marmeladenglas luftdicht verschlossen. Warum Leinöl? Schmiert beim Laufradbau, verharzt dann binnen weniger Tage und dient dann als "Schraubensicherungskleber" gegen das Lösen der Nippel.

We show that $\bigl(\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}\bigr)$-approximate parameterized $k$-SetCover is W[1]-hard, and has no $n^{o(k/\log k)}$-time algorithms under ETH. This improves upon the previous best factors $\bigl(\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}\bigr)^{1/k}$ in (Lin, 2019) and $(\log n)^{1/\text{poly}(k)}$ in (Karthik, Laekhanukit, and Manurangsi, 2019). Here $k$ is the yes-case guarantee and $n$ is the number of candidate sets. While the best approximation ratio is still $O(\log n)$ via the greedy algorithm, closing this $1/k$ gap in the exponent has been a longstanding open problem; we remove this loss via a simple direct reduction. The construction is self-contained and does not rely on the parameterized inapproximability hypothesis (PIH). Starting with sparse parameterized 2-CSP instances (Karthik, Marx, Pilipczuk, and Souza, 2024), we build a monotone CNF formula, which is equivalent to a SetCover instance. To obtain a $k$-versus-$h$ gap, the reduction enumerates all hash functions from $\Sigma$ to $[2h]$ and all unsatisfiable 2-CSP instances on the same constraint graph with alphabet $[2h]$. For each such instance, it asks for a certificate that the hashed label pairs are not all contained in that instance. Perfect hashing makes this enumeration efficient for $h=\log n/\log\log n$.

Ich bin dann mal kabellos tendentiell offline. 😢 2.4GHz Wlan der @AVM_DE FritzBox 7590 * 15.9.2017 - † 21.04.2023 20:50 Was die Fritze sieht (näher an anderen Wohnungen) <-> was der Wlan AP 2 Räume weiter sieht https://t.co/xggOOWCvLe

**Authors:** Jacobus Conradi, Anne Driemel Many application areas collect unstructured trajectory data. In subtrajectory clustering, one is interested to find patterns in this data using a hybrid combination of segmentation and clustering. We analyze two variants of this problem based on the well-known \textsc{SetCover} and \textsc{CoverageMaximization} problems. In both variants the set system is induced by metric balls under the Fr\'echet distance centered at polygonal curves. Our algorithms focus on improving the running time of the update step of the generic greedy algorithm by means of a careful combination of sweeps through a candidate space. In the first variant, we are given a polygonal curve $P$ of complexity $n$, distance threshold $\Delta$ and complexity bound $\ell$ and the goal is to identify a minimum-size set of center curves $\mathcal{C}$, where each center curve is of complexity at most $\ell$ and every point $p$ on $P$ is covered. A point $p$ on $P$ is covered if it is part of a subtrajectory $\pi_p$ of $P$ such that there is a center $c\in\mathcal{C}$ whose Fr\'echet distance to $\pi_p$ is at most $\Delta$. We present an approximation algorithm for this problem with a running time of $O((n^2\ell + \sqrt{k_\Delta}n^{5/2})\log^2n)$, where $k_\Delta$ is the size of an optimal solution. The algorithm gives a bicriterial approximation guarantee that relaxes the Fr\'echet distance threshold by a constant factor and the size of the solution by a factor of $O(\log n)$. The second problem variant asks for the maximum fraction of the input curve $P$ that can be covered using $k$ center curves, where $k\leq n$ is a parameter to the algorithm. Here, we show that our techniques lead to an algorithm with a running time of $O((k+\ell)n^2\log^2 n)$ and similar approximation guarantees. Note that in both algorithms $k,k_\Delta\in O(n)$ and hence the running time is cubic, or better if $k\ll n$.

**Authors:** Klaus Jansen, Tobias Mömke, Björn Schumacher We study hardness of reoptimization of the fundamental and hard to approximate SetCover problem. Reoptimization considers an instance together with a solution and a modified instance where the goal is to approximate the modified instance while utilizing the information gained by solution to the related instance. We study four different types of reoptimization for (weighted) SetCover: adding a set, removing a set, adding an element to the universe, and removing an element from the universe. A few of these cases are known to be easier to approximate than the classic SetCover problem. We show that all the other cases are essentially as hard to approximate as SetCover. The reoptimization problem of adding and removing an element in the unweighted case is known to admit a PTAS. For these settings we show that there is no EPTAS under common hardness assumptions via a novel combination of the classic way to show that a reoptimization problem is NP-hard and the relation between EPTAS and FPT.