Talk:Randomized rounding

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}}

I just created the Randomized rounding page. This is the first wikipedia page I've created. Please let me know about appropriateness of topic, format, etc. --Nealeyoung (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been marked as potentially confusing or unclear. Please comment below on what about the article is confusing or unclear, and I will edit it to try to clarify. Nealeyoung (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There was one mistake in algorithm, I have corrected it. The mistake was in section "Randomized-rounding algorithm for Set Cover" algorithm step number 2 definition of p_s. It is actually minimum of lambda*(x_s)^* and 1, but instead of minimum, it was mistakenly written maximum. So I have corrected it. Deepak Jeswani 202.3.77.11 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The challenge in the first step is to choose a suitable integer linear program. (For example, the integer linear program should have a small integrality gap.) This challenge is not discussed here."

If it's a challenge AND the first step, maybe you ought to discuss it, at least a bit. The reference to integrality gap makes a circular reference back to this article. Encyclopedias should at least try, better yet strive to give an approximate verbal idea, give some fair, if imperfect analogy so certain readers can be satisified without having to chase links into deeper and deeper water. If they want to go deeper, they still have the link. For some topics, some lines of reasoning, that may not be practical or even possible, but if you can think hard to come up with something, do so. But mathematicians are often so embedded in their ways that they are blinded by the satisfaction with their own understanding. All too common in the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.29.81 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]