Talk:Happy Ending problem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|||||
| Mathematics grading: | B+ Class | Low Importance | Field: Discrete mathematics | ||
| Format references using <ref> tags, then consider nominating for Good Article status. | |||||
[edit] General position
Brendan: is it really necessary to say no two points coincident, in the general position footnote? I'd think that would be covered by calling them a set. —David Eppstein 16:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not mathematically necessary, and in fact it is also covered by "no three points are collinear". So it can be removed. On the other hand, this article is aimed at general readers, who might find some redundancy helpful. I'm happy either way. McKay 04:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name
Why is it named the 'happy ending' problem? Thanks! - Fasrad 04:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- See the first sentence of the article. McKay 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I need to stop reading Wikipedia late at night. Fasrad 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another reference
In hopes of convincing Tompw (talk • contribs) that the importance is more than low, here's an application of closely related ideas to an important open problem in algorithms: arXiv:cs.CG/0610092. But I'm not going to do more than mention this here for fear of violating WP:OR. —David Eppstein 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
