Talk:Traveling purchaser problem

Our explanation of NP-hardness seems flawed
The article currently says this:

I don't follow this statement. It seems backward: you don't prove that problem A is NP-Hard by reducing it to some known NP-hard problem B; you prove it by reducing B to A. The cited article is no help, because it simply makes this exact same statement. Can someone clarify? --Doradus (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection, I don't think the original source meant that the algorithm "reduces" in the strict sense of algorithmic complexity; I think they meant it in the sense that the Traveling Purchaser Problem (TPP) is more sophisticated than the TSP, and so if some of the TPP's sophistication is removed, it becomes equivalent to the TSP. --Doradus (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Travelling
It sould be travelling with two Ls, as in Travelling salesman problem. Uziel302 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)