Talk:Chinese postman problem

message: The article says:
1 → 2
2 → 3
3 → 1
Is this a correct way of demonstrating the validity of those equivalences?
--213.100.56.253 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eulerian paths and circuits 

message: The "Solution" section deals only with eulerian and non-eulerian graphs, stating that if the graph is eulerian, an eulerian path can be found, otherwise another method can give the shortest path possible.
However, wouldn't it be more appropriate to make the distinction between semi-eulerian graphs and non-semi-eulerian graphs? Because all semi-eulerian graphs, whether they are also eulerian or not, have eulerian paths. (Tanynep (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not.  The problem when odd-degree vertices exist is solved by reduction to the case when all vertex degrees are even.  Thus, the natural division is between the case with odd degrees and the case without any. Zaslav (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eulerian vs semi-eulerian/traversable 

message: Does anyone know anything about Mei-Ko Kwan the person himself? His name is conspicuous by its complete absence anywhere on the Net other than a brief sentence about how he deduced the Chinese Postman algorithm. There aren't even any photos of him, or any information about where he was born/died or where he lived and did his work.
This is especially odd considering he published his algorithm in 1962, which can't have been easy considering that China was probably one of the worst places to be seen to be an intellectual at the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holy triple m (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was Mei-Ko Kwan? 

message: The whole T-paths section is a complete mess. Where are you getting 1/2 |T| "paths" from? What is this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.220.182 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See e.g. Korte, Vygen: Combinatorial Optimization. (Lemma 12.8). There are |T|/2 paths because there are |T| many vertices with odd degree that have to be covered (each path does 2 of them). Additionally, there may be some circuits, too. A path is defined (at least in Korte, Vygen) as sequence of vertices and edges, all being pairwise disjoint. I don't see a problem with that. --Star Flyer (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-paths 

message: The text says:
"When T is the empty set, a smallest T-join leads to a solution of the postman problem."
But Schrijver's book, Corollary 29.1d, gives us a solution of that problem by T=vertices of odd degree. Did I misunderstand something or is there an error in the text? --Star Flyer (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake? Text says: T=empty, then smallest T-join solves postman problem 

message: The article implies that the Rural Salesman (not every edge required) is considered NP-complete, however the source on Rural Salesman is behind a paywall and the citation for the assertion doesn't mention the Rural Salesman. It seems un-intuitive that the original would be P while this variant is NP. If this is the case, an explanation added (or at least a source) would be helpful 50.241.129.75 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rural Salesman 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Route inspection problem →  – I would like to suggest renaming the article to Chinese Postman Problem. WalkingRadiance (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

text: The renaming process would change the redirect from Chinese Postman Problem to the main article and Route Inspection Problem would redirect to Chinese Postman Problem. WalkingRadiance (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Chinese Postman Problem" is definitely the wrong title; we don't capitalize like that on Wikipedia. Chinese postman problem exists and is a redirect to this article. It does seem to be true that "Chinese postman problem" is the more WP:COMMONNAME for this problem, even among very recent publications. Given that our article documents that the name was given to honor a specific Chinese mathematician, rather than as an instance of racist stereotyping, I don't think moving the article to Chinese postman problem over the redirect would be problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 October 2022