l1 gap is 1

main.tex

@@ -181,7 +181,8 @@ To get a $O(\sqrt{\log n})$ (randomized) approximation algorithm we need to firs
 \]
 
 This is the framework of the proof in \cite{arora_expander_2004}.
-I think the intuition behind this SDP relaxation is almost the same as \metric{}. $\ell_1$ metrics are good since they are in the cut cone. If we further require the metric in \metric{} is a $\ell_1$ metric in $\R^d$, the resulting LP is still a relaxation of \nonuscut{} and the integrality gap is upperbounded by the metric embedding theorem. \cite{leighton_multicommodity_1999} showed that the $\Theta(\log n)$ gap is tight for \metric{}, but add extra constraints to \metric{} (while keeping it to be a relaxation of \scut{} and to be polynomially solvable) may provides better gap. The SDP relaxation is in fact trying to enforce the metric to be $\ell_2^2$ in $\R^n$.
+I think the intuition behind this SDP relaxation is almost the same as \metric{}. $\ell_1$ metrics are good since they are in the cut cone. However, if we further require that the metric in \metric{} is an $\ell_1$ metric in $\R^d$, then resulting LP is NP-hard, since the integrality gap becomes 1.
+\cite{leighton_multicommodity_1999} showed that the $\Theta(\log n)$ gap is tight for \metric{}, but add extra constraints to \metric{} (while keeping it to be a relaxation of \scut{} and to be polynomially solvable) may provides better gap. The SDP relaxation is in fact trying to enforce the metric to be $\ell_2^2$ in $\R^n$.
 
 \bibliographystyle{alpha}
 \bibliography{ref}