912:. The formulation I came up with addresses all the fundamentals. The total revert is not very cooperative at all. I would like to address your concerns, however wholescale deletion and a note that says "I didn't prefer it" do not help a lot. WHY didn't you prefer it? I am able to respond to that. However I suspect it is a belief that the article is mathematical, and that fundamentals do not matter at all. That's POV. If scholars have discerned the fundamentals, than that's called "subject matter." Theorem is an interdisciplinary topic, and it deserves complete treatment. Please consider, in what way we can preserve the subject matter. Please work your perspective into the formulation I worked so hard on. We aren't taking about a GA article here yet. So I am wondering how we make it one. I think I provided an excellent start. Thank you. Be well,
684:, you undid a change in which I changed a minus sign to a negative sign. Your comment says that "Minus signs are taken care of by LaTeX." I disagree. A minus sign and a negative sign are different and AFAIK, LaTeX does not do anything to automatically pick between them. LaTeX always chooses to use a long dash for the '-' symbol. From my experience, the way to tell LaTeX to use a short dash, which is the correct symbol for a negative sign, you have to put the dash in a \text{} command. How do you tell LaTeX to use a negative sign instead of a minus sign?...because you refered the document to a state in which a minus sign is used but a negative sign is desired.
1498:) which is APX-complete and then describe the metric problem (which is equivalent) and Euclidean problem (which is PTAS). The unweighted version described in the beginning is simply a restriction on the weighted version and I hardly see any references to that problem description (where all the weights are 1). It would be better if Knowledge (XXG) defines the problem similar to other books and articles. We could reference the case where all the weights are 1 and 2 leading to a constant approximation factor of 1.28. -
1860:
1928:
1881:
1674:
to determine whether a conference should rank high is MS academic search. You mention below that PAM does not have many citations. You should not look at the number of citations but the citation ratio (citations per paper published). We list ICC which has almost 1:1 citation ratio and we would not list PAM that has almost 6:1?
1710:
but PAM seems to be the 42th conference in the list, and the number of citations is much lower than in most conferences that we have listed in the field. Again, I'm not saying that this makes PAM non-notable; I'm only saying that this is not a particularly convincing positive indicator of notability.
1365:
The fact that one is APX-complete and the other is PTAS is not a contradiction. I'm talking about a constant c optimization, not PTAS. Since it's possible to prove that after the polynomial transformation the optimal solution does not exceed the original one then we can show carry over results from a
1673:
My bad to cite era-a, you are right. Like the CORE ranking, the ERA rankings are pretty much BS. They list not so good conferences as A and good confs as B. Nevertheless just the fact that a conf is include in the A or B lists means that it passes a standard of quality. The most reliable way we have
1493:
I see, I thought we were referring to the same problem in
Vazirani as Euclidean Steiner tree problem. Probably the original article prior to your cleanup caused this confusion. Now that we are on the same page I would suggest that perhaps the article first describes the weighted Steiner tree problem
1450:
provide a transformation between the
Euclidean Steiner tree problem (geometric problem) and the metric Steiner tree problem (graph problem). It provides a transformation between two graph problems: (general non-metric) Steiner tree problem and metric Steiner tree problem (both of these are described
1310:
2. I added information on a simple 2 approximation algorithm (also from
Vazirani). The fact that there are better algorithms should not mean that this information should be deleted. Some of these algorithms are by far more complex than this very simple algorithm. I see no reason to edit this out. It
931:
more useful to a layman than your proposal ("A theorem is an idea, concept or abstraction token instances of which are formed using a string of symbols according to both the syntactic rules of a language (also called its grammar) and the transformation rules of a formal system. ...") If a person has
1524:
About "Steiner tree in graphs": I did not add this term in the article, it was there already, I just tried to clarify it. Steiner tree in graphs = Problem 3.1 ("Steiner tree") in
Vazirani's book. Theorem 3.2 in the book shows that we can focus on metric Steiner trees instead of general (non-metric)
1415:
That's my understanding from
Theorem 3.2 in Vazirani. Basically you construct the metric space Steiner tree by computing the shortest path for each edge. This guarantees that the optimal solution in the metric problem would be at most the optimal solution in the Euclidean problem. Thus you preserve
638:
HI Miym, sorry for my poor skills in writing something in "Wikipedian Format". Some weeks ago I added a few links to my website, this has been tagged as an attempt to promote my website. Yes it actually was, but all the link were strictly attinent to the article content. I have readen the
Knowledge
1961:
and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion
1729:
the problem with MSAS rankings is that they are based on an eigenvector-based metric. They pretty much compute the pagerank of a conference, but instead of web links they use the citation/authorship/published-in etc relations. This is a very good metric but it is unfair for new venues that do not
1650:
should be among top-10 conferences in respective fields; ERA rank A indicates that this might be the case, while ERA rank B doesn't tell us much about it. I removed PAM without prejudice; feel free to put it back when you find a reliable source that indicates that show that PAM is clearly notable.
1645:
Sure, I believe that PAM is notable, but we need reliable sources that show that this is the case. ERA rank B is not a reason to remove, but I don't think it's a reason to add, either. There are almost 1000 conferences in the ERA listing with rank A or B, including dozens of conferences related to
1545:
section a bit. Hope it addresses some of your concerns; among others, it now mentions the triangle inequality and avoids the problematic sentence that was difficult to understand. Feel free to edit the text; I agree that the article needs a lot of work! I'm not trying to censor anything, I just
1388:
Ok, let's focus on constant-factor approximation algorithms then if it's easier. There is a polynomial-time 1.01-approximation algorithm for
Euclidean Steiner trees. And you claim that there is a polynomial-time approximation-factor preserving transformation between Euclidean and metric Steiner
1346:
Hello
Gshaham, thanks for comments. A quick question about "a polynomial time transformation between the Euclidean problem to the metric problem and back". Metric Steiner trees are APX-complete while Euclidean Steiner trees admit a PTAS. Are you really claiming that you can take an APX-complete
133:
Hi Miym. What do you mean with "notability"? I know QPL has been held for several years, and most of the development in quantum programming languages are first published there, however, I don't know which kind of reference is needed to add it to the computer science list of conferences. Cheers.
1303:
Thank you for adding details on the
Steiner trees and the contribution. However, some of your edits are not clear: 1. "Steiner tree in graphs" is not something defined in Approximation algorithms by Vijay V. Vazirani (cited as the source of that paragraph), but rather the "metric Steiner tree
411:
I am not a spammer, I would have placed them automatically instead of getting an account, show my face an patiently add them one by one. I am sure if some expert test those codes the link will result appropriate. I thing you were to impulsive removing them, I have a website, I understand your
237:
In order to convey the major intention of the sub-category, being related to distributed computing, the word "distributed" is crucial. Putting other categories as subcategories of "distributed" is not useful, but rather does a disservice. Thus also removing "distributed" categories since "a
559:: "However the "alphabet" used here is based on the Unicode character listing, and may give unexpected results. For example, all capital letters come before all lower case letters; modified letters come after all unmodified letters; and spaces come before anything else."
1304:
problem". I'm not sure what you mean by this term. In any case a complete graph that meets the triangle inequality should be equivalent to the metric
Steiner tree problem. Not sure why you decided to edit this out as I believe it clarifies things to the reader.
1884:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
1730:
have many incoming citations. The best way to resolve this problem is to actually look at the citation ratio of the conference. I believe the position PAM is currently listed in is fair and I have substantiated it sufficiently. I am not alone in this belief:
1314:
3. Because it is possible to show a polynomial time transformation between the Euclidean problem to the metric problem and back, that information should be there. I see no reason to "censor" this information as it helps with approximation of this problem.
539:
Hi, I noticed you added the Defaultsort parameter to a lot of articles on complexity classes. I think I understand what default sort does, but I'm not sure I understand why you added lowercase versions of the title to the article as its sort parameter.
1888:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
415:
I am not expert of wikipedia discussions and don't have enough time to learn. If the link will be removed without even see where they points to I wont place them anymore. I am not advertsing, I don't want to insist. I hope you will understand.
1121:
is turning out to be a pretty informative article, and I've always heard people calling them sub-exponential time algorithms or quasi-polynomial time algorithms, as opposed to saying "in the class SUBEXP or QP." Moreover, some concepts like
162:
If you think that QPL is notable enough to warrant a Knowledge (XXG) article, then I think the best way is to go ahead, find the reliable sources, and write an article. After that it is certainly ok to include it in relevant lists such as
392:
page I added a link to my Convex Hull Algorithm (Open source), I was also planning to write some text about it, since I judge that section not so good. The link points to a video demostration (very instructive), isn't that good?
1746:
118:
and issued a warning to the contributor that persistent copyright violators are by policy blocked. Please let me know at my talk page if you should happen to see more suspected infringement from that specific contributor.
568:
for the articles whose name begins with an F or an N. Some of those articles already had DEFAULTSORT parameters, most didn't, and the end result was a bit strange; I think it is more or less "correct" now. (Did I break
1814:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
1130:
is terrible. I agree that "Category:Computational resources" might be more appropriate than Category:Complexity classes. Unfortunately WP:CS is an almost dead project, so we can't expect much input from there.
384:
page I added a link to my Open source calculator. What's better tha a software probability calculator in this page? there is a link to some poker tables that in my opinion is much less than this software.
733:) systems handle minus and negative signs correctly. You simply type, e.g., $ -2$ , $ k-2$ , $ n^{-2}$ , or $ n^{k-2}$ in the source code and the output looks good. These are rendered roughly like −2,
481:
But thanks for catching this; I'll try to be more careful with my edits. I think I'd have tried to find sources for this entry myself, but the latest addition of this link was an anon user undoing
1307:
1a. In particular I don't understand the sentence "we do not require that the edge weights correspond to distances in a metric space". It doesn't seem related to anything written in those pages.
1585:
Sure, but we already have the category "Computer science conferences", which is a subcat of "Academic conferences", which is a subcat of "International conferences", so it is redundant. See also
1459:
to approximate than the graph problems (metric or non-metric Steiner trees) and there is no approximation-factor preserving transformation between the geometric problem and the graph problems. —
1771:
1171:
A different idea: How about combining all the "x time" articles into one article on time complexity? I'm sure a lot of people type "time complexity" into wikipedia and are directed to the
1609:
It is a quite notable conference. Next time please check appropriate sources, before you arbitrarily remove entries. Being in the ERA list as B does not mean the conference is not good.
1126:
are reused, not just for defining the class P, but also for defining FP, and to define efficient algorithms from an analysis of algorithms perspective. On the other hand, the article on
927:
Hello Gregbard, I think the old lead paragraph ("In mathematics, a theorem is a statement proved on the basis of previously accepted or established statements such as axioms. ...") is
335:
660:
pointing to a video demostration of an efficient convex hull computation. Are you expert of convex hull algorihtm? If not please consider proposing the problem to somebody that is.
932:
no idea what is a theorem, the first version might give at least some idea, while the second version looks unapproachable. Besides, the lead section in your version is very long. —
798:. First of all, the font size is incorrect. But moreover there are spaces around the "−" sign, and that's why it looks so horribly wrong. I agree with you that this should be fixed.
467:
I'm sorry, my edit summary was a bit too short. Of course red links are fine, but then in a list like this we must have references that show the notability of the red-linked person.
377:
page I added a link to my library like others did. You may say mine is not worth to be published but at least you should try it before deleting. I can ensure you it works good.
1942:
The page should instead be a separate article on Univac's proprietary network architecture (See Systems Network Architecture#Competitors), not a redirect to an unrelated concept
1655:
independent sources is naturally the best option. (Whatever you do, please do not add incorrect references, like you have done with PAM: it obviously isn't "ERA: rank A"!) —
1151:
How about a new category for things like "polynomial time" and "constant time"? Something which describes what they are, like maybe Category:Computational resource bounds. --
1228:
has been non-dead recently, maybe you could write a proposal there? Here is a (partial?) list of terms that could be changed into redirects that point to "Time complexity":
1446:
I think you have misunderstood the definition of the Euclidean Steiner tree problem; it is not a graph problem but a geometric problem. Theorem 3.2 in Vazirani's book does
1201:
I'm becoming more and more convinced that this might be a good idea. (The total length of all "x time" articles is fairly large, but there is a lot of overlap in them.) —
882:
1866:
1850:
796:
172:
If you do not want to write an article but you would like to list the conference as a red link in the list, then we need some reliable sources in the list itself. As
315:
hi we are working on promoting wikipedia in the balkans with the sfk. why do you try and get it deleted? please help us make it better, not destroy it. thanks, mike
1586:
1871:
1766:
205:
In the sake of fairness and consistency with our criteria, I agree with you. CoNext cannot be included until external proof or notability is provided.
1947:
1917:
1734:, where you can find posts by well-known networking profs. To this end, I now cite its citation ratio with the indicator to search for PAM in MSAS.
289:
Many conferences belong in multiple categories, e.g. Usenix Security is "Security, Operating Systems and Networking". Please revert your changes.
262:
258:
285:
Miyum in the "List of computer Science Conferences" you removed some conferences because they are duplicates. They are supposed to be duplicates.
1546:
wanted to quickly fix some factual errors and add enough content (specifically, PTAS vs. APX) that should avoid the same confusion in future. —
1776:
1758:
1839:
1681:
Regarding libra.msra.cn links, I couldn't find the word "libra" in the sourcecode of the page. Could you perhaps be a bit more specific? —
1647:
296:
177:
164:
452:
Red links, i.e. links to non-existent articles, should be left intact if an article with the title that is linked to ought to be created.
1882:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing (2nd nomination)
367:
Sorry for my pedestrian approch, I am new to wikipedia. I added a few links that were removed from you, let me give some explanations.
1958:
1935:
1921:
1910:
1567:
1966:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the
412:
position, I receive huge amount of spam and sometimes I delete it without even looking at it. I know what spam is and this is not.
221:
1646:
networking – we can't list everything, and hence we need to be a bit more selective. As a rule of thumb, the conferences listed in
176:
says, lists are subject to the usual requirement of having verifiable sources. See the footnotes that we have in other redlinks in
1633:
1389:
trees. Doesn't this imply that there would be a polynomial-time 1.01-approximation algorithm for metric Steiner trees as well? —
1088:
968:
952:
Gregbard, did you actually expect your bloviating abomination to replace the standard definition of a theorem. Incredible ...
53:
1835:
1762:
266:
48:
1026:
is the complexity class. Also, do you think we're duplicating too much by having separate articles on exponential time and
1334:
115:
1963:
1318:
4. I would appreciate a discussion on these matters rather than editing out text that is based on acceptable resources.
381:
254:
1875:
1826:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
58:
1831:
1092:
1071:
575:
565:
1018:
and similar articles to Category: Complexity classes. I thought the category was only for complexity classes. I mean
1082:. I thought that putting all these articles into one category would help us to identify such candidates for mergers.
749:, "−", but the difference is in the spacing: the binary operator is (in some contexts) surrounded by spaces, e.g. "
31:
998:
1731:
1225:
38:
27:
1753:
485:'s changes without any explanation, so I clicked "undo" a bit too hastily simply based on the edit history. —
300:
65:
1784:
1612:
1269:
457:
408:... They are all striclty related o the article. More, they are much better than some link already present.
374:
1621:
1322:
956:
292:
209:
69:
1981:
1938:
requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done for the following reason:
1707:
1347:
problem and transform it into an equivalent problem that admits a PTAS? In effect, showing that P = NP? —
1172:
515:. While guidelines should not be simply ignored, they have less support and weaker force than policies. —
1827:
81:
73:
1575:
1257:
472:(I'd be particularly careful with the sourcing of red links in this particular list. First, it may have
401:
217:
642:
Now I am asking you to test them, how can I create a discussion made by people who works in the field?
504:
442:
43:
362:
213:
1629:
1625:
1542:
1452:
1261:
1118:
1074:. In fact, the reason for doing that was exactly what you said: we have overlapping articles such as
995:
964:
960:
689:
114:
Hi. Thank you for noting and following up on your copyright concerns. I have also tagged the article
1803:
1794:
556:
108:
521:
238:
sub-category already exists" which does not explicitly say "distributed," is a disservice. Thanks.
149:
Hi JanusDC! By notability I just refer to the usual notability requirement of Knowledge (XXG), see
120:
97:
85:
1823:
1807:
1499:
1417:
1367:
1326:
807:
A simple solution is to not use Latex-math in Knowledge (XXG) at all. Just write ''n''<sup: -->
1780:
1617:
I would also replace the libra.msra.cn links with the new academic.research.microsoft.com site.
917:
894:
453:
34:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
461:
1525:
Steiner trees. I hope this answers your concerns 1 and 1a. I can try to clarify the wording. —
655:
80:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
1977:
1898:
1769:. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at
1503:
1421:
1371:
1330:
1241:
1176:
434:
makes it look as if your only reason for deleting the link is that the article doesn't exist.
320:
139:
1973:
1819:
1811:
1571:
1265:
1233:
1184:
1156:
1136:
1127:
1075:
1054:
1046:
1035:
1019:
864:
645:
I saw some links which is greatly poorer than the one I suggested but they weren't removed.
621:
545:
397:
1822:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1815:
1087:
Anyway, feel free to re-categorise if you can find a better category. Perhaps we could use
990:
771:
473:
173:
1495:
1311:
may also be useful to show this info before going into PTAS which is a more general term.
1253:
1123:
856:
766:
The support for Latex-like markup in Knowledge (XXG) is utterly broken: here <math: -->
685:
243:
1272:. I think the target article could be, in essence, a fleshed-out version of the table in
598:
doesn't have. Adding consistent DEFAULTSORT parameters to all articles should fix it. —
1273:
1245:
1058:
886:
681:
516:
482:
93:
1699:
It seems you have already replaced libra with the new MS academic search links, great.
154:
150:
1229:
1096:
1015:
913:
890:
639:(XXG) terms and I thing thing some of those links are really worth to be published.
1894:
1706:
And regarding your link to Microsoft Academic Search: I did check their ranking in
316:
135:
167:, too. Notability is already established in the article itself and its references.
1867:
List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
1851:
List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
1962:
tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
1455:). The Euclidean Steiner tree problem is a very different thing; it is strictly
1237:
1180:
1152:
1132:
1031:
860:
708:
617:
591:
587:
541:
405:
389:
1249:
827:
239:
233:
Adding "Distributed" in all sub-categories of "distributed" related categories
476:
issues. Second, a "list of prominent people" easily attracts vanity entries.)
1732:
http://mybiasedcoin.blogspot.com/2009/10/ranking-networking-conferences.html
1712:
1682:
1656:
1590:
1547:
1526:
1460:
1390:
1348:
1277:
1202:
1100:
933:
838:
599:
486:
339:
270:
186:
649:
1613:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Conference/1443.aspx?query=passive
1117:
Yeah, I'm not sure what would be the right thing to do. On the one hand,
579:
1587:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Conference categories
1810:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)
1708:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/CSDirectory/conf_category_14.htm
1079:
1062:
1050:
1045:
Thanks for the comments! I agree that we should merge articles such as
1027:
1023:
909:
826:(like you did in \text{-}) as a minus sign is always wrong. See, e.g.,
574:
You can see similar problems within the articles beginning with "P" in
1953:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may
1745:
823:
595:
583:
555:
The problem is that case matters when ordering category entries. See
809:
and the result looks as good as one can reasonably expect in HTML: "
993:
behaviour request in to have it modified, I will check the status.
855:
You gave a more comprehensive answer than I would have. Good thing
830:; both the unary operator and the binary operator are long dashes.
726:
77:
1741:
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:ACM publications
1985:
1950:, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
1904:
1843:
1788:
1720:
1690:
1664:
1637:
1598:
1579:
1570:
from this article? Clearly it is an international conference.
1555:
1534:
1507:
1468:
1425:
1398:
1375:
1356:
1338:
1285:
1210:
1188:
1160:
1140:
1108:
1039:
1003:
972:
941:
921:
898:
868:
846:
693:
625:
607:
549:
526:
494:
347:
324:
304:
278:
247:
225:
194:
143:
123:
101:
908:
I have put a lot of time and effort into improving the article
730:
1065:; perhaps we could merge all three to clarify the confusion?)
1968:
1926:
1744:
656:
http://www.advancedmcode.org/fast-convex-hull-algorithm.html
153:. In particular, we need reliable, third-party sources, see
336:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/SoftwareFreedomKosovo
1972:, or if you have already done so, you can place a request
1870:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to
1366:
c constant optimization from one problem to the other. —
503:
I wandered here “randomly”, but just wanted to note that
753:− 2", while the unary operator is never, e.g. "−2" and "
594:
seems to have a "DEFAULTSORT:Pspace-Hard" parameter but
370:
All links are strictly related to article, for example:
253:
Ok, I don't mind if you add add the relevant entries of
1864:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
1496:
http://www.nada.kth.se/~viggo/wwwcompendium/node78.html
859:
mistakenly posted this on your page instead of mine! --
704:
431:
716:
Anyway, I do have a (strong) opinion about this issue:
774:
334:
trying to help you make it better, see my comment on
88:, or ask your question on this page and then place
885:. I think the information that I added shows that
790:
1802:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
883:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jan Węglarz
1179:article, both of which aren't that helpful. --
1562:International Conference on Logic Programming
425:
8:
1757:, which you created, has been nominated for
1022:is an article about exponential time, while
590:! This is because "PS" < "Pa" < "Ps";
1711:Some other sources are needed, I think. —
64:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
1964:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
1872:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
1605:Passive and Active Measurement Conference
1274:Big O notation#Orders of common functions
779:
773:
1543:Steiner tree problem#Metric Steiner tree
1453:Steiner tree problem#Metric Steiner tree
1070:I also agree that I'm slightly abusing
263:Category:Concurrency control algorithms
259:Category:Distributed computing problems
92:before the question. Again, welcome!
311:why are you trying to delete our page?
1895:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
703:undo your change. Have a look at the
7:
1648:List of computer science conferences
178:List of computer science conferences
165:List of computer science conferences
564:I just tried to fix the sorting in
426:Don't gratuitously remove red links
39:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
1936:Distributed Computing Architecture
1922:Distributed Computing Architecture
1911:Distributed Computing Architecture
1568:Category:International conferences
382:Poker probability (Texas hold 'em)
30:to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for
14:
1880:The article will be discussed at
1828:review the candidates' statements
1858:
1089:Category:Computational resources
1057:describes seems to be more like
267:Category:Distributed algorithms
1834:. For the Election committee,
1804:Arbitration Committee election
1795:ArbCom elections are now open!
673:Latex: Minus vs Negative Signs
1:
1844:13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
1599:19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
1580:19:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
1286:17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
1004:15:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
616:I understand. Makes sense. --
527:12:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
348:22:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
325:22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
279:17:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
248:16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
116:Arithmetic circuit complexity
102:22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
1948:criteria for speedy deletion
1905:12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
1789:02:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
1721:08:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
1691:08:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
1665:08:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
1638:03:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
1556:14:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
1535:14:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
1508:13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1469:13:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1426:12:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1416:the approximation factor. -
1399:00:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1376:00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1357:14:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
1339:13:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
1211:22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
1189:04:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
1161:04:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1141:00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1109:00:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1040:23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1010:Category: Complexity classes
973:05:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
942:22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
922:22:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
899:23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
869:06:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
847:10:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
694:00:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
305:16:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
261:and the relevant entries of
255:Category:Concurrency control
54:How to write a great article
1986:00:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
1830:and submit your choices on
1093:Category:Complexity classes
1072:Category:Complexity classes
626:17:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
608:15:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
576:Category:Complexity classes
566:Category:Complexity classes
550:14:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
495:09:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
462:03:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
443:this Knowledge (XXG) policy
354:About the links you removed
226:16:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
195:07:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
144:23:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
2001:
1836:MediaWiki message delivery
1589:for related discussion. —
985:Reordering refs in reflist
881:Please see my comments at
1934:A tag has been placed on
1777:Categories for discussion
1754:Category:ACM publications
1014:Hey, I noticed you added
124:15:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
82:Knowledge (XXG):Questions
1874:or whether it should be
1716:
1686:
1660:
1594:
1551:
1530:
1464:
1394:
1352:
1281:
1206:
1104:
937:
842:
603:
505:Knowledge (XXG):Red link
490:
343:
274:
190:
1270:Double exponential time
745:. All of these use the
699:Dear Bender2k14, I did
663:Waiting for your reply
375:Nearest neighbor search
1969:deleting administrator
1955:contest the nomination
1944:
1931:
1749:
1173:analysis of algorithms
792:
791:{\displaystyle n^{-2}}
650:Convex hull algorithms
1940:
1930:
1808:Arbitration Committee
1748:
1258:Quasi-polynomial time
793:
648:For example: on the
441:If so, that violates
402:Dilation (morphology)
396:I did tha same for a
1772:the category's entry
1262:Sub-exponential time
1119:sub-exponential time
1053:. (By the way, what
904:Consensus on theorem
772:
767:n^{-2}</math: -->
107:Copyright concerns,
1812:arbitration process
1566:Why did you remove
837:Hope this helps. —
652:I added this link:
1932:
1824:arbitration policy
1750:
1095:for articles like
788:
711:undid your change.
680:In the article on
180:for some examples.
49:How to edit a page
32:your contributions
1959:visiting the page
1779:page. Thank you.
1641:
1624:comment added by
1342:
1325:comment added by
1242:Linearithmic time
1177:complexity theory
976:
959:comment added by
914:Pontiff Greg Bard
330:Hello Mdupont, I
295:comment added by
229:
212:comment added by
72:your messages on
26:Hello, Miym, and
1992:
1971:
1929:
1901:
1862:
1861:
1640:
1618:
1341:
1319:
1266:Exponential time
1234:Logarithmic time
1128:exponential time
1076:Exponential time
1055:Exponential time
1047:Exponential time
1020:exponential time
975:
953:
797:
795:
794:
789:
787:
786:
666:My Best regards
524:
419:My Best regards
398:Point in polygon
363:User Bracchesimo
307:
228:
206:
91:
74:discussion pages
2000:
1999:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1967:
1927:
1925:
1918:Speedy deletion
1914:
1903:
1899:
1891:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1832:the voting page
1798:
1743:
1619:
1607:
1564:
1320:
1298:
1254:Polynomial time
1124:polynomial time
1012:
987:
954:
906:
889:is notable. --
879:
857:User:Bender2k14
808:−2</sup: -->
775:
770:
769:
747:same minus sign
675:
636:
578:. For example,
537:
525:
520:
507:is in fact not
430:You summary in
428:
356:
313:
290:
235:
207:
203:
131:
112:
89:
59:Manual of Style
19:
12:
11:
5:
1998:
1996:
1924:
1920:nomination of
1915:
1913:
1908:
1893:
1857:
1856:
1854:
1849:Nomination of
1847:
1801:
1797:
1792:
1742:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1724:
1723:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1694:
1693:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1668:
1667:
1606:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1563:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1541:I changed the
1538:
1537:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1360:
1359:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1246:Quadratic time
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1112:
1111:
1084:
1083:
1067:
1066:
1059:E (complexity)
1011:
1008:
986:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
945:
944:
905:
902:
878:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
850:
849:
834:
833:
832:
831:
817:
816:
815:
814:
802:
801:
800:
799:
785:
782:
778:
761:
760:
759:
758:
718:
717:
713:
712:
682:graph coloring
674:
671:
635:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
611:
610:
571:
570:
561:
560:
536:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
519:
498:
497:
483:User:Gandalf61
478:
477:
469:
468:
450:
449:
439:
438:
427:
424:
355:
352:
351:
350:
312:
309:
297:75.189.248.175
287:
286:
282:
281:
234:
231:
202:
199:
198:
197:
182:
181:
169:
168:
159:
158:
130:
127:
121:Moonriddengirl
111:
109:User:Yewang315
105:
62:
61:
56:
51:
46:
41:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1997:
1988:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1970:
1965:
1960:
1956:
1951:
1949:
1943:
1939:
1937:
1923:
1919:
1916:
1912:
1909:
1907:
1906:
1902:
1896:
1890:
1886:
1883:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1868:
1852:
1848:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1781:Mike Selinker
1778:
1774:
1773:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1755:
1747:
1740:
1733:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1709:
1705:
1704:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1649:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1615:
1614:
1610:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1523:
1522:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1296:Steiner trees
1295:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:Constant time
1227:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1097:Constant time
1094:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:constant time
1009:
1007:
1005:
1001:
1000:
997:
992:
984:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
943:
939:
935:
930:
926:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
911:
903:
901:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
876:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
853:
852:
851:
848:
844:
840:
836:
835:
829:
825:
821:
820:
819:
818:
812:
806:
805:
804:
803:
783:
780:
776:
765:
764:
763:
762:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
725:
722:
721:
720:
719:
715:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
695:
691:
687:
683:
678:
672:
670:
667:
664:
661:
658:
657:
653:
651:
646:
643:
640:
633:
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:
613:
612:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
572:
567:
563:
562:
558:
554:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
534:
528:
523:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
475:
471:
470:
466:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
454:Michael Hardy
448:
447:
446:
444:
437:
436:
435:
433:
423:
420:
417:
413:
409:
407:
403:
399:
394:
391:
386:
383:
378:
376:
371:
368:
365:
364:
359:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
310:
308:
306:
302:
298:
294:
284:
283:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
232:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
183:
179:
175:
171:
170:
166:
161:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:
146:
145:
141:
137:
128:
126:
125:
122:
117:
110:
106:
104:
103:
99:
95:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
52:
50:
47:
45:
42:
40:
37:
36:
35:
33:
29:
24:
23:
16:
1978:Neutronstar2
1954:
1952:
1945:
1941:
1933:
1892:
1887:
1879:
1865:
1853:for deletion
1799:
1770:
1752:
1751:
1652:
1616:
1611:
1608:
1565:
1456:
1447:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1013:
994:
988:
928:
907:
880:
810:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
723:
700:
679:
677:Hello Miym,
676:
668:
665:
662:
659:
654:
647:
644:
641:
637:
538:
512:
508:
451:
440:
429:
421:
418:
414:
410:
395:
387:
379:
372:
369:
366:
360:
357:
331:
314:
288:
236:
204:
132:
113:
86:my talk page
84:, ask me on
63:
25:
21:
20:
1620:—Preceding
1572:Vegaswikian
1321:—Preceding
1238:Linear time
1091:instead of
955:—Preceding
887:Jan Węglarz
877:Jan Węglarz
709:User:RobinK
592:PSPACE-hard
588:PSPACE-hard
582:is between
569:something?)
535:Defaultsort
406:Convolution
400:algorithm,
390:Convex hull
291:—Preceding
214:Nick.dorvas
208:—Preceding
76:using four
1946:Under the
1900:reply here
1820:topic bans
1626:John.legal
1250:Cubic time
1226:WT:COMPSCI
1030:, etc.? --
999:Farmbrough
961:John.legal
828:Minus sign
686:Bender2k14
557:WP:SORTKEY
185:Thanks! —
90:{{helpme}}
66:Wikipedian
1816:site bans
1494:(same as
1300:Hi Miym,
768:produces
634:Dear miym
517:SlamDiego
513:guideline
432:this edit
358:HI Miym,
94:Rosiestep
68:! Please
1767:renaming
1759:deletion
1653:multiple
1634:contribs
1622:unsigned
1335:contribs
1323:unsigned
969:contribs
957:unsigned
891:Eastmain
822:Using a
580:Parity P
511:, but a
293:unsigned
265:also to
257:also to
222:contribs
210:unsigned
44:Tutorial
22:Welcome!
1876:deleted
1775:on the
1763:merging
1651:Having
1500:Gshaham
1418:Gshaham
1368:Gshaham
1327:Gshaham
1080:EXPTIME
1063:EXPTIME
1051:EXPTIME
1028:EXPTIME
1024:EXPTIME
910:Theorem
705:history
388:In the
380:In the
373:In the
317:Mdupont
136:JanusDC
28:welcome
17:Welcome
1806:. The
1457:easier
1268:, and
991:WP:AWB
989:Known
824:hyphen
741:, and
669:Luigi
596:PSPACE
584:PSPACE
509:policy
474:WP:BLP
422:Luigi
201:CoNext
174:WP:SAL
78:tildes
1765:, or
1181:Robin
1153:Robin
1133:Robin
1061:than
1032:Robin
861:Robin
737:− 2,
729:(and
727:LaTeX
618:Robin
542:Robin
361:I am
240:Comps
1982:talk
1974:here
1840:talk
1785:talk
1717:talk
1713:Miym
1687:talk
1683:Miym
1661:talk
1657:Miym
1630:talk
1595:talk
1591:Miym
1576:talk
1552:talk
1548:Miym
1531:talk
1527:Miym
1504:talk
1465:talk
1461:Miym
1422:talk
1395:talk
1391:Miym
1372:talk
1353:talk
1349:Miym
1331:talk
1282:talk
1278:Miym
1276:. —
1207:talk
1203:Miym
1185:talk
1157:talk
1137:talk
1105:talk
1101:Miym
1099:? —
1078:and
1049:and
1036:talk
996:Rich
965:talk
938:talk
934:Miym
929:much
918:talk
895:talk
865:talk
843:talk
839:Miym
724:Real
690:talk
622:talk
604:talk
600:Miym
586:and
546:talk
491:talk
487:Miym
458:talk
404:and
344:talk
340:Miym
338:. —
321:talk
301:talk
275:talk
271:Miym
269:. —
244:talk
218:talk
191:talk
187:Miym
155:WP:V
151:WP:N
140:talk
98:talk
70:sign
1976:.
1957:by
1800:Hi,
1451:in
1448:not
1175:or
731:TeX
701:not
129:QPL
1984:)
1878:.
1842:)
1818:,
1787:)
1761:,
1719:)
1689:)
1663:)
1636:)
1632:•
1597:)
1578:)
1554:)
1533:)
1506:)
1467:)
1424:)
1397:)
1374:)
1355:)
1337:)
1333:•
1284:)
1264:,
1260:,
1256:,
1252:,
1248:,
1244:,
1240:,
1236:,
1232:,
1209:)
1187:)
1159:)
1139:)
1131:--
1107:)
1038:)
1006:.
1002:,
971:)
967:•
940:)
920:)
897:)
867:)
845:)
781:−
757:".
707:;
692:)
624:)
606:)
548:)
540:--
522:←T
493:)
460:)
445:.
346:)
332:am
323:)
303:)
277:)
246:)
224:)
220:•
193:)
142:)
134:--
119:--
100:)
1980:(
1897:|
1838:(
1783:(
1715:(
1685:(
1659:(
1628:(
1593:(
1574:(
1550:(
1529:(
1502:(
1463:(
1420:(
1393:(
1370:(
1351:(
1329:(
1280:(
1205:(
1183:(
1155:(
1135:(
1103:(
1034:(
963:(
936:(
916:(
893:(
863:(
841:(
813:"
811:n
784:2
777:n
755:n
751:k
743:n
739:n
735:k
688:(
620:(
602:(
544:(
489:(
456:(
342:(
319:(
299:(
273:(
242:(
216:(
189:(
157:.
138:(
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.