Jump to content

Talk:Strong NP-completeness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

More examples

A list of strongly NP-hard problems would be fine! The article does not even mention only one example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.73.110.246 (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I am excited to see if this article will contain anything that can't easily be put into other NP articles. I suggest merge... Medico80 22:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, umm...a good question. As the one who created it I wouldn't have any problem with merging the information into the NP-completeness article; I just saw some article linking to this (non-existent) page so thought creating it would be a good idea. If the info is put into the NP-completeness article, should we make this one redirect there? Flaxter 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is the way to do it. Cheers :-) Medico80 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.163.140 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong-NP-hardness not defined correctly

the definition the article gives is:

A problem is said to be strongly NP-hard if a strongly NP-complete problem has a polynomial reduction to it;

This is not correct, right would be:

A problem is said to be strongly NP-hard if any strongly NP problem has a polynomial reduction to it2A02:1205:34D9:C2F0:74E5:7FDB:9D8C:1944 (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, about the same sentence

A problem is said to be strongly NP-hard if a strongly NP-complete problem has a polynomial reduction to it

According to Garey and Johnson 1978, 1979, it seems that the correct sentence would be:

A problem is said to be strongly NP-hard if a strongly NP-complete problem has a pseudo-polynomial reduction to it Bweps (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]