Talk:Parameterized complexity
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]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)
W hierarchy
[edit]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)
- Why do you prefer W(2) over W[2]? Does the second one break something? --Robin (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- 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 (talk • contribs)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 (talk • contribs)
- 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)
Relationship between XP, para-NP and FPT
[edit]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...