User talk:212.143.17.66

Cigarette smokers problem
Welcome to Wikipedia! I've replied to your question on Talk:Cigarette smokers problem; hope it helps. Thanks for contributing! FYI, you can (and should) sign your talk-page comments by putting four tildes ~ after your comment. (Three and five tildes also do things, but I never remember what, without trying it.) --Quuxplusone 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm at large confused by the wiki talk pages so I'll try to see if you read this message


 * I'm not satisfied with what you wrote. Forgive me for being blunt (so much for anonimity) but I think I have ample academic and real-life expirience so that if I fail to see the "problem" it must mean something.


 * As a side-note see that the solution code does not deal with the aspect of "get tobbaco/matches/paper out of your pocket". So maybe this adds to the confusion.


 * The "problem" should maybe be something like - making sure there is a continous stream of smoking.


 * Thanks for dealing with my comments, sorry again for the language


 * three tildes

212.143.17.66

I took the liberty of indenting your reply to distinguish it from mine; I hope you don't mind. Also, if this discussion turns out to be productive, it might be a good idea to move it back to Talk:Cigarette smokers problem.

Anyway, the "problem" is really just to simulate the three smokers and the arbiter using software. Your idea of "a continuous stream of smoking" is close to the mark, but the real problem is a little more general: part of the problem is to figure out what kinds of pathological behavior might occur, and then avoid those behaviors if possible. For example, it would be pathological if the arbiter put out tobacco and paper on the table, but the man with the matches "didn't notice" and thus the process ground to a halt. It would also be pathological if the arbiter "didn't notice" when the table was empty. It might also be considered pathological if the simulation contained race conditions (sorry, I can't think of an example).

Do you understand the article Dining philosophers problem? If not, I think I'd be more comfortable trying to explain that problem. If you do understand Dining Philosophers, but still don't understand Cigarette Smokers, then I'm at a loss &mdash; I don't know what you're confused about!

By the way, Talk pages on Wikipedia are a really inefficient way to communicate. This kind of discussion would be on-topic in  on Usenet, if you feel like learning a new method of communication. :) --Quuxplusone 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This conversation becomes a mess. I do understand everything in the article and what you wrote. I just point what I think is missing from the document. Whatever. If you're satisfied with the text then I'll stay put. 212.143.17.66