🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

% \footnote{Our impression is that the community (including the authors) had been expecting a cubic lower bound to exist.}

Mathematics = Logics + quant

As a result, it has been conjectured that this problem exhibits a statistical/computational tradeoff \todo{not sure if anyone has actually conjectured this}.

\hypersetup{ pdftitle = {We're looking for jobs!} }

Walruses ❤️

% I'm not sure this should be highlighted at all,

%%% OK, YOU MAY EDIT BELOW THIS LINE %%%

TODO: write some concluding remarks!!!

, ... (maybe communicate the current situation?)

733008047147 (A prime number!)

set this to 1 to get a comment-free version

フォントが多すぎると怒られたので追加

maybe deffer the proof? it is a bit technical and pretty trivial.

What is our hope?

this is pretty obviously the correct thing to do, but I'm not sure how I would prove it. I think it would be more involved than it's worth.

applying their technique as a black-box will not yield our result.

\note{loose = lose?} XD yep!

did BNTY18 really show block sensitivity, rather than just sensitivity? I think not... I think this is one of those cases where the difference between sensitivity and block sensitivity is important, and I suspect BNTY techniques could not handle bs

\textbf{sentence to please reviewers}

We can do it over all fields, right? If so, that speaks to cold-hearted FOCS reviewers and is worth mentioning.