Talk:PSPACE-complete
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PSPACE-complete article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article is unintelligible to Joe Average. How can we make it better?
- Not at all, it's a good article. But the answer to the question 'how to make better' (for Joe Average) is to throw in more and more examples. And never skimp on general preamble .. "Mathematicians and computer scientists try to carefully define different types of complexity..." etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, poster is correct, it's incomprehensible without specialized knowledge of the jargon used. I've added a jargon tag; hopefully someone can fill this out to make it more accessible to those not versed in game theory. - superβεεcat 05:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's good for those of us versed in complexity theory. I also think OP is correct about the difficulty -- it seems about right for Mathworld, but daunting to the usual Wikipedia reader. I think the same is true of most of the topics posted here about complexity theory, whether jargon-tagged or not. I may try to come back to this, but only after figuring out how to improve all of the related articles. For one thing, I am not sure how much introductory material should be repeated in all the articles; they are hard enough that there should be at least some common stuff. I don't like the idea of just linking to a general intro. Perhaps the general preamble suggested above should be completed and inserted in all or most of the related topics. kogorman (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Correct me if I am wrong, but mathematicians and computer scientists are the ones who probably access this page the most. Is linking jargon to relevant articles not sufficient? Otherwise, the explanations would be intrusive. I think we should mention some specific examples of clarifications here and make them, otherwise remove the tags. Looks like it was tagged as early as 2009 and is still tagged, which suggests that if changes were needed, they would have been made by now. Alejandro Erickson (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)