Talk:Gadget (computer science)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Component design[edit]

Shouldn't the article mention the term "component design" from Garey & Johnson? It seems to be used at least occasionally in the literature [1][2]. —Ruud 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PROD[edit]

This article is an orphan, too technical, and WP is not a dictionary. Can you do something about these issues? Why should this not be merged into Computational complexity theory or some other article? Ideogram (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither an orphan nor a dictionary definition. It could use a concrete example, such as their application in proving the NP-completeness of vertex cover or Hamiltonian cycle. With an example it would be too large to merge into computational complexity theory. —Ruud 22:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it were to be merged anywhere, reduction would be a better place. Anyway, I've added an example, and have plans to do some more expansion based on some recent research on methods to search for optimized gadgets for inapproximability proofs. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, thanks. —Ruud 23:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks, that helps. Ideogram (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]