Talk:Ford–Fulkerson algorithm

message: Isn't this more like the Edmonds–Karp algorithm? I thought the Ford Fulkerson keeps the selection of the paths unspecified...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:1120:8C00:386F:F73E:7DE:BE89 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "The code is incomplete and does not work at all. The understanding of language features of Python is very good. But the understanding of the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm is very poor. The DFS in find_path is not even correct." Zerotalk 12:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see some problems in the find_path code (the path it returns isn't a simple path when it should and it doesn't run in optimal time), that sould be corrected, but I think that the whole code nevertheless works correctly. Svick (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  I may be wrong, but I see at least one more problem: why is adj[u] not the same as adj[v] in add_edge? Should both the edges not have the same capacity w instead of one being 0? musically_ut (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this version is also correct. In directed network, edge from u to v with capacity c doesn't mean that there is an  edge from v to u with the same capacity. If your network is undirected (similar to real pipes), you have to add each edge twice, once for every direction. Your version would work too, but only for undirected networks. Svick (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I have now fixed that particular bug. --Petter (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Python example 

message: :The following comment was moved from the article (section Python implementation), where it doesn't belong. Svick (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code looks like Erlang 

message: I wonder why all my citations were placed in the "Notes" section. Is this an error that needs to be fixed? 09:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why citations are in the Notes section? 

message: The Edmonds-Karp algorithm is merely an implementation of Ford-Fulkerson that specifies that the augmenting path should be found by breadth-first search. The article on Edmonds-Karp is WP:Semi-duplicate and contains largely similar content, all of which really should be in this article. Merge Edmonds-Karp into this article? IntGrah (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaning against this merge. It's a named algorithm that is commonly covered in algorithms textbooks (Introduction to Algorithms dedicates a few pages to it), and I'm not aware of any other named algorithm that gets that amount of coverage and doesn't have its own article. It's also more of a subtopic of the Ford–Fulkerson algorithm than a duplicate, and in my opinion the contents aren't similar enough to require merging. For example, the Ford–Fulkerson article could serve as a higher-level overview of the method by discussing the concept of finding augmenting paths in a residual network, why this method works (max-flow min-cut theorem), failure cases with irrational edge capacities, and its max-flow-dependent running time, while the Edmonds–Karp article could dive deeper into its running time (why it's polynomial and independent of maximum flow value) and include implementation details like pseudocode. Malerisch (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Edmonds-Karp algorithm