Talk:Decision-tree pruning

References/Original Research/Unverified Claims
This article needs some references to indicate its not original research. Please cite at least one reference to indicate Decision Tree Pruning as a field of study (and which has replaced the study of Artificial Intellignece) AMcDermot (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC) I started the wiki intending to discuss decision-tree pruning, but it quickly changed into a Sudoku solving method. I think I need to delete the wiki and create a more appropriately named page. --Wjfwiki (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research or unverified claims? On 3/24 article cited 6245 steps to solve a particular decision tree. On 3/26 the same decision tree required 1633 steps. No explanation provided. Seems to be original research with no source of data.

Nevertheless this article may have potential. I also recommend to get rid of computer code. Some graphs, diagrams, or charts to explain the decision tree method would be better. AMcDermot (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rubics cube analogy
The comparison of rubics cube to Sudoko is confusing. A Rubics cube can never be invalid, but there are invalid sudokus such as:

1-- --- ---

7-- --- --5

--- --- 3-4

--- --- 6--

--- --- -28

--- -93 -1-

3-- 1-- ---

987 --- ---

-2- 6-- ---

The analogy does not support the claim that the author contends. Another explanation is suggested. AMcDermot (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC) I added bold to the part of the sentence that states the assumption of the puzzle being valid. --Wjfwiki (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge this article wth this
Merge this article with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruning_%28algorithm%29

Both pages imply the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.8.218 (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree strongly. Plus, the content of this one is ropey. Doing it now.--mcld (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)