Although I thought that the main theoretical proof section was informatative, I felt the paper was a bit lacking in the introductory and experimental sections. I would liked to have seen a bit better introduction, particularly with the extensive use of domain specific vocabulary.

I found the results in the experimental section compelling, but not as compelling as the authors. I understand that the main contribution of this paper is of a more theoretical one, but if experiments are to be included, they should be analyzed further. It appears to me that only half of the experiments seem to show the conclusions of the authors. To simply brush this off by saying "m presumably cannot grow large enough..." is not sufficient. Also, a detailed analysis of the figures and experiences running the tests would have made the experimental section much more useful to the readers.