I liked the article!
I would mention that it is part of the millenium problems and the one million dollar prize that comes with it.
P vs NP on simple english wikipedia - feedback, please
11–20 of 66 posts
Re: P vs NP on simple english wikipedia - feedback, please
#12I think you might be missing the point of the simple English wikipedia. It's the vocabulary that you use that is simple, not the way in which you express the concepts.
Exactly. I was suprised why someone would use "mass" in a simple english wikipedia
Re: P vs NP on simple english wikipedia - feedback, please
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
I somewhat agree. For example why use a term like 'mass', when 'size' or 'weight' would be much simpler.
and wrong
...but equally useful for the example, which is just about dividing rocks into two groups. We're interested in the process of dividing the rocks, not the criteria for division.
Re: P vs NP on simple english wikipedia - feedback, please
#14I think this generally does a good job of simplifying the terminology without falling into "durr, people who don't speak English natively are dumb" territory.
I agree. Simple errs towards 5 year olds, not people whos native language is not English, as they have their own wikipedias.
Re: P vs NP on simple english wikipedia - feedback, please
#15I suggest emphasizing that problems that can be solved easily can be checked easily. It's a simple idea, but it wouldn't necessarily occur to the casual reader and is quite important.
Re: P vs NP on simple english wikipedia - feedback, please
#16Re: P vs NP on simple english wikipedia - feedback, please
#17I suggest emphasizing that problems that can be solved easily can be checked easily. It's a simple idea, but it wouldn't necessarily occur to the casual reader and is quite important.
agreed that the example is not the best, a better example would be a picture puzzle that can be verified in just a glance but to build it you need to test all pieces against each other to see if they match.
Re: P vs NP on simple english wikipedia - feedback, please
#18The page says people "would like to know if there are any problems that are easy for computers to see if a one person's answer is correct, but hard for computers to find a correct answer." However the example given seems to answer this question in the affirmative: it's a problem that's easy to check using a set of scales, but very hard to find a correct answer.
maybe the example needs to be more clear - it's hard for the computer to check all possible answers, but maybe it's easy for the computer to find the answer another way.
Re: P vs NP on simple english wikipedia - feedback, please
#19I think you might be missing the point of the simple English wikipedia. It's the vocabulary that you use that is simple, not the way in which you express the concepts.
i debated this one a lot. on the one hand, people are more likely to recognize the word weight, but on the other hand, weight isn't an inherent property of objects, and (to be overly pedantic) two rocks of equal mass, one at the top of the tower, and one at the bottom, will have difference weights.
Re: P vs NP on simple english wikipedia - feedback, please
#20I found the article helpful, though I was hoping for an explanation of the enigmatic (for me) 'polynomial time' - I know now it would probably have been irrelevant here.
One thing: as a UK English speaker, the term "rocks" sounds American to me. We would say "stones" in the same context. Don't know if that's important for Simple English.