Talk:Monte Carlo 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}}

Relation to Monte Carlo method

A Monte Carlo algorithm is more general than the Monte Carlo method (which is basically a sampling technique). Schizoid (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I reverted a previous change which simply made the article a redirect to Monte Carlo method. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 02:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Monte Carlo method page currently states "Monte Carlo methods [..] are a broad class of computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling", so it doesn't look like it's just a sampling technique, is it? I think that merging the two pages should be considered again. --William Di Luigi (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]