Talk:Banker's algorithm

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	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.

See also is for irrelevant resources (?) OK, can be. But for relevant as well? (Primarily for relevant) --Premil 14:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I missed an extra 'also' in my edit comment. Mark Hurd 15:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHERE THE HOES AT?

HOES:HI,I GOT GONAREHA

ME:FUCK THAT NEVER MIND

Added algorithm section

I added a large section describing how the algorithm works. I wrote this from my memory of the algorithm from my operating systems class. I did check with some websites and my textbook (which I cited) to make sure I wasn't too far off. Still, it would help if someone else could double check everything, (especially to make sure it is clear enough and not too technical). Also, I didn't want to remove the stub tag myself, but there might be enough information now to do so. MagiMaster 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I AM THE BADDEST BITCH OF THEM ALL AND THATS ON PERIOTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!

OT: what about hyperlinking math symbols

Hi, since I don't really have a clue where to say this I say it here: What about hyperlinking math symbols (excuse my ignorance if they're not known by this name) like in "foreach (p ∈ P)", while as a programmer I can guess what it means, I'm rather weak on math (isn't this clear by now) so if "∈" linked to a page explaining what it is I'd (hopefully) understand it. Just an idea, bye and thanks to you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.67.217 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, anon. I understand that for some people certain texts may be easier to understand if there are some pointers to prereqs/background information. I also feel kind of uncomfortable reading some formal math expressions like formal grammar. However, here are my two cents:

Wikipedia is a public service website that has to accommodate as many people as possible, so there will always be people who think the article is too easy / too hard / just the right level. The trade-off here is to make as many people comfortable as possible while keeping the article readable for most people.
For people who don't know set-related notations, a link will be pretty helpful. For people who already know them, though, overlinking can be a distraction and make the article look ugly, especially when the link text is part of a math expression. See linking guidelines.
It turns out that many people, especially programmers, understand basic set theory. Furthermore, English Wikipedia is a special Wikipedia; unlike other languages' Wikipedia that are only used by a certain region, English Wikipedia is used by people from all around the world. Set theory is part of high school education in many countries, and part of college education in most countries. So it's reasonable to expect most of our readers to be comfortable with set-related notations.
That said, not linking math symbols here is probably a better decision. The majority of readers can understand the symbols, while people who don't can search the Internet and hopefully figure it out in a few minutes.

Your comment does have a very good point, though: Maybe Wikipedia should have a Prerequisites section for each page, in addition to See also, Notes, References, External links and topic templates. None of the existing conventional sections address your problem and I think it does make Wikipedia a bit unfriendly. A Prerequisites section means more work maintaining the articles, but it will help people at different level from different background have a easier time reading Wikipedia.

Sheep0x (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

The "Deadlock Recovery, Avoidance and Prevention" link is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.109.167 (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Previous example"?

Currently, the first example refers to a "previous example" which might be a later example (except the numbers do not match). This conflicts with probably all english meanings of the word "previous". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.151.178 (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit that seems to have removed the "previous example". In case it's not the example we are looking for, or if there's some reason (copyright, etc.) we should remove this example, we can remove it again. Sheep0x (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting issues

Can somebody make the numbered list in Resources > Requests > Example continued? Currently the newlines break the list and the numbering becomes 1,2,1,2,3,... I wonder if there's a way to make it 1,2,3,4,5,... Sheep0x (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody make the C code folded so that the rest of the page is easier to read? Scrolling up and down is a little bit frustrating. Sheep0x (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]