Talk:Cigarette smokers problem

message: I've just updated the article with a solution to the problem that involves an array of semaphores (which explains why Patil didn't consider it a solution). But it seems utterly straightforward and trivial! So I don't understand why Parnas' paper makes the problem statement and array-based solution sound so complicated, or why he's talking about "semaphore overflow" when all you need are binary semaphores. And why the restriction on conditional statements? Am I misunderstanding the problem — does it have extra constraints the article doesn't mention? --Quuxplusone 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution

message: This article is completely useless the way it stands at present.
The "problem formulation" is missing! Even my first-year BSc students can write better articles than this - at least they understand that the problem must be well defined....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.154.124 (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As with other famous synchronization problems (Sleeping barber problem, Dining philosophers problem, Readers-writers problem), the "problem" is simply to simulate on a computer what has already been described in words. I've added a paragraph, but it's very much repeating what's already explained further down, in the "Argument" section, so maybe someone else can clean it up and remove the redundancy. --Quuxplusone 06:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is still missing, or at least not clearly formulated. I assume the problem is somewhere along the lines that the other two smokers can't smoke as fast as they would want to because they need to wait for the matchman to stop blocking the table?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.252.119 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the PROBLEM

message: I fail to see how the problem with the original restrictions says anything at all about semaphores. Is it even possible to do the random selection stage without using either an array or conditional statements? -Ahruman 08:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Silliness of problem

message: Is there any source for the "smokers get lung cancer" line? This was added by a non-logged-in user, and I don't know if it even really makes sense... Darkxsun (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or would completely disappear -- each smoker could have their resources locked away in a safe that none of the others had the key for. In which case the problem would persist. Even if not, it would require two smokers to die to "solve" the problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.223 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lung cancer???

message: I don't understand this.  Please have editors make this article more accessible to lay readers.  In particular, I don't understand what the actual problem is, since it seems that every smoker is probably going to be able to smoke a lot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.207.79 (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. After reading this article, the user has no idea of what the actual problem is. It doesn't state that what it does state is a problem.--Prehistoricmanthe2nd (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

text: The article still doesn't say what is the problem? I thought maybe I was having difficulty with reading comprehension, but I come here and see many others with the same question.129.219.155.89 (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: please

message: This edit on 02:43, February 25, 2006 by Quuxplusone reformulated the problem statement in a way that fundamentally changes the problem, as well as introducing an unsourced solution that fails to meet the problem constraints. I've attempted to restore the original problem using sources available online, hopefully making it clearer what the problem actually is. — Miles 07:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2015 cleanup 

message: "The smoker who has the third supply should remove the two items from the table, using them (along with their own supply) to make a cigarette, which they smoke for a while."
Is the supply that of the third smoker? Who smokes the cigarette, the third smoker or all three? Of course, English is not my native language, but cannot it be that something is wrong with the sentence? Эйхер (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  They 

message: I made some minor changes to make it clear that the problem has fundamental restrictions. I've also made it clear that these restrictions have been questioned/criticized.
Prior to this the problem section did not even mention the restrictions. Ggpur (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem Update 2022