Talk:Constraint satisfaction problem

Support keeping separate articles + cleanup and expansion
After giving this some thought, I support keeping the articles separate.

But the cleanup and hopefull expansion could include expansion of the constraint satisfaction problem page, and simplification of the constraint satisfaction article's explanation of formal algorithms. That other page is written in a way that is most accessible to the general reader not familiar with technical detail on either the subject or methods similar to those use in CSP programming and should remain generally accessible without going into great detail of solutions of CSP problems -- precisely where references to the constraint satisfaction problem or other more techical pages should be made.

Then the constraint satisfaction problem page should expand on algorithms and methods based on tree search and other methods, with links to individual algorithms by name. My time is limited at this point, but in the next year I will see what I can do. Especially the constraint satisfaction problem page should be expanded to include more algorithms and history. I repeated part of this note from edited form on constraint satisfaction page.

Csp-interest (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Simpler formulation of the problem
Is it really necessary to treat "respective domain of values" D and "set of constraints" C separately, because "respective domains of values" seem to be just constraints involving a single variable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikko.nummelin (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is standard usage in most of the literature. Ott2 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous initialism 'DCSP'
The initialism 'DCSP' is ambiguous. The article uses it as shorthand for both "Decentralized" CSPs and "Dynamic" CSPs. Two questions arise: yoyo (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Does this reflect current practice in the literature?
 * 2) How not to confuse our readers? More specifically, should we:
 * note that current practice is ambiguous; or alternatively,
 * avoid the conflict by spelling out one of the two?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constraint satisfaction problem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206055207/http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~ianm/docs/Thesis.ppt to http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~ianm/docs/Thesis.ppt
 * Added tag to https://eprints.kfupm.edu.sa/50799/1/50799.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification in formal definition
Shouldn't the constraints $$t_j \subset X $$ in the formal definition be ordered subsets of $$X$$? If not, what does it mean that the values assigned to the variables satisfy the relation $$R_j$$. Relations are sets of ordered tuples.

155.230.154.31 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Feder-Vardi conjecture" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feder-Vardi_conjecture&redirect=no Feder-Vardi conjecture] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)