Talk:Combinatorial design

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Untitled

This article seems to be the main page for combinatorial design theory, which the combinatorics page lists as one of the major branches of the subject. To my mind, this argues for assigning high priority to this article. Admittedly, the current stub doesn't reflect that. Will Orrick 17:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probabilistic combinatorics

I'll go out on a limb here and reveal my ignorance. Which results in combinatorial design theory were obtained by the probabilistic method? I ask out of genuine curiosity, but also because the recently added section doesn't make this clear to me. Will Orrick (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that expander graphs are one of the more important examples of combinatorial designs whose existence is elegantly proved by the probabilistic method? Unless another editor adds something that clarifies the relevance of this recently added section, I would suggest removing this section, because it is not presently helpful. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion to delete. While I'm quite willing to believe that the probabilistic method is important in combinatorial design theory, no connection is made between the two topics in the section as currently written. More generally, the article needs to be expanded considerably. Many core definitions and results of the field are not even mentioned. I've been hoping somebody would take this on. Unfortunately, I am not presently in a position to do so myself. Will Orrick (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Combinatorial design/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Geometry guy 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Some suggestions == I think this article would benefit from some more content. For example:

Some mention of designs other than BIBDs
Classic problems and theorems
Some mention of interesting and open problems

Also, I believe the lambda condition for BIBDs is actually more along the lines of "each possible pairing of elements occurs in exactly

\lambda

blocks". I'll begin gathering sources for the above content. Any suggestions regarding what to include/exclude? Abigatorbait (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Combinatorial design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20090805072251/http://batman.cs.dal.ca/~peter/designdb/ to http://batman.cs.dal.ca/~peter/designdb/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The site is still live, but at a new address and with reduced functionality. Neither the new site nor the Internet Archive version appears to contain a live, searchable database, so I decided to remove the link entirely. Will Orrick (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]