Talk:Parameterized complexity

According to dictionary.com it's spelt "Parametrized". Similar to "Oriented" vs "Orientated" I think ...

Talk:Parameterized complexity

Untitled

According to dictionary.com it's spelt "Parametrized". Similar to "Oriented" vs "Orientated" I think ...

As you can see in the references, the spelling is correct. ylloh (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

W hierarchy

If somebody wants to help expanding the section on the W hierarchy, preferably into a separate article, I’d by happy. I find this very difficult to explain, given the number of various attempts at defining these things, all of which are terribly, terribly technical. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why do you prefer W(2) over W[2]? Does the second one break something? --Robin (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. WP:NCTR, so this seemed to be the proper way out. Alternative are welcome. 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thore Husfeldt (talkcontribs)
But those guidelines are for titles of articles. We could still have the section names in this article be W[1] etc. In the far future when W[1] gets its own article, we can let someone else worry about naming the article. --Robin (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was worried about the square brackets actually messing up the link syntax, more than the title syntax. But if you think it’s green, go ahead and change it back. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I see your point, but it's really rare that someone would actually want to link to W[2]. And if its really needed, we can use a workaround like W[2]. So I've gone ahead and changed it back to square brackets. --Robin (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the explanation of the hierarchy needs to be improved, Thore. In particular, I think there shouldn't be a subsection for every single W[t]. ;) ylloh (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Relationship between XP, para-NP and FPT

In the paragraph about XP, it is said that XP != FPT by a diagonal argument. In the paragraph about Para-NP, it is said that Para-NP = FPT iff P = NP, and that a para-NP hard problem may not belong to XP, unless P = NP.

Should I understand that the diagonal argument works only if P != NP, or more likely, that the latter assertion should be that a para-NP hard problem may not belong to FPT, unless P = NP.

Moreover, It seems clear that k-graph coloring is in XP...

Dorbec (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.