Talk:Combinatorial explosion
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Combinatorial explosion (communication) page were merged into Combinatorial explosion on 20 January 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Questions: Does this article capture how the phrase "combinatorial explosion" is used? edit
Was the phrase combinatorial explosion coined by Sir James Lighthill in his 1974 critique of artificial intelligence (the Lighthill report)? If so, then shouldn't this article define "combinatorial explosion" in terms of algorithms, running time, computers, and intractability? Or is the term "combinatorial explosion" actually an older and more general term used by mathematicians in the way this article describes? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? edit
The best complete example of a combinatorial explosion is an evaluation of tastiness? I'm not familiar enough with the topic to provide another, but this does not seem to be a serious example. Additionally, it isn't helping me become familiar enough. 70.91.178.185 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I added a section on game analysis (chess in particular) as an example.—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Loop edit
Shouldn't embedded loops(for/while) be part of combinatorial explosions as well ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.60.59 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Communication edit
The example given here for the number of communication lines for n organizations does not appear to be an example of combinatorial explosion. A better example might be the Traveling Salesman Problem, which leads to O(n!) routes for n cities. Psalm 119:105 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Lead Tag (Removal) edit
I removed the "multiple issues" tag on this article. Most of the article is OK, but there is still a "needs additional citations" within the article which should probably remain. If any specific statements need citations or have other problems they can be cited specifically with [citation needed], [clarification needed], or [dubious ] tags.—LithiumFlash (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)