Talk:Anytime algorithm

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating 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}}

problem with "References" section

There is something wrong with the "References" section of the article. The first 31 entries, have just an author's name (or is it a "cite" name?) which does not seem very helpful. Sorry my knowledge of what is wrong, is limited. (However, if you just look at the "References" section of the article, it should be obvious what the problem is.) I just do not know how to fix it. Actually, there may be a "{{tag}}" of some kind, that I could have put in to the article itself, like the one saying "this is a stub, please help expand / improve it". However, if there is such a "{{tag}}", I am not familiar with it. Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --63.102.70.70 (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong

I'd never heard of this before today, so I can't claim to know anything about this, but the article certainly looks dodgy. So I had a brief read of the first web-accessible reference in the list, which is here, and it looks like this article doesn't correctly describe the concept at all. Specifically:

Interruptibility seems to be a necessary condition. The Construction section is utterly wrong (cut-off point is not specified in advance).
Interruptibility seems not to be a sufficient condition. The Introduction makes it seem like it is.
Limit turing machines seem to have nothing to do with it.

Generally, the article is incoherent and self-contradictory. Possibly this is due to conflicting definitions of the term, but my guess is Wikipedia simply got it wrong. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, getting something wrong? I'm shocked. ;-) The "limit Turing machines" thing is from Mark Burgin himself (editing as Multipundit, as usual). He didn't know the term "anytime algorithm" until I introduced him to it, in criticizing his article on super-recursive algorithms for either inventing nothing new or simply getting basic computing theory wrong. So what does Burgin do? He comes here and retroactively claims credit for theoretical work in anytime algorithms! I'm not surprised the article doesn't describe the concept accurately at all, if he's been mucking around with it. I'd fix it, but I just don't have the patience to fight Burgin. Yakushima (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]