Talk:Constraint satisfaction

message: Really nice that someone has gone to the trouble to create this page.  Not so nice is that the Constraint satisfaction problem article has existed throughout 2004-2006, and has now been left orphaned by all the new CSP articles (without being linked to).  Please resolve this!  --Ott2 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article doesn't look orphaned . - Liberatore(T) 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My mistake -- thanks for your work on the CSP pages. --Ott2 15:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphaned

message: After giving this some thought, I support keeping the articles separate. I especially disagree with an above proposal in discussion (reverse of the recommended merger) to include this into the constraint satisfaction problem page. I agree with that writer's view that the main impetus for "constraint satisfaction" is "constraint satisfaction problems" -- my one paper on the subject has that in the name. My disagreement is that an unfamiliar person would naturally refer to the concept in its simplest form, constraint satisfaction, and a technical reader would refer to the more technical terminology. Thus the simpler name would be the best heading. That is very different from the issue of which article would best serve as the basis TEXT for the merged article. But once again, I support keeping separate as more readable.
But the cleanup and hopefull expansion could include expansion of the constraint satisfaction problem page, and this article could be expanded with regard to the variety of major types of constraint related problems. There are already mentions of "constraint satisfaction" issues here not considered as CSPs. Also this page is written in a way that is more accessible to the general reader not familiar with technical detail on either the subject or methods similar to those use in CSP programming. It should remain generally accessible without going into great detail of solutions of CSP problems -- precisely where references to the constraint satisfaction problem or other more techical pages should be made.
One impression is that the links occur to the constraint satisfaction problem page, witout really suggesting that the reader will find more specific details there. That may foster thinking that the articles should be merged, a sense of duplication. But the duplication is illusory, the "problem" page really is a detailed technical discussion. So suggest that here! Are there more tutorial like examples that can be placed here to learn about the nature of constraint satisfaction itself, as opposed to details of solution? A good example might be further discussion of the 8 queens or Sudoku problems in a form that the reader learns about the notion satisfying constraints itself. This would be seem extraneous on the more technical constraint satisfaction problem page, which would then focus on technical details of solving CSPs. I completely agree with Diego above on "solving" being reduced in scope (and other issues), but not necessarily completely removing the paragraph(s). Rather this is an excellent opportunity to focus on LINKING to the other articles, and suggesting more details of those aspects will be found there. However do not eliminate the description of "solving", as that is the major impetus for constraint satisfaction existing as a topic.
I think that some reference to the examples should remain on the "problem" page, but constraint satisfaction page is right one for more tutorial like examples. But they should not be limited to just those that fall under "problem" heading, as algebraic constraints or some similar examples might fall outside of the AI "problem" grouping, yet be part of the more general discussion. That is an example of pulling some text from the "problem" page to the heading page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csp-interest (talk • contribs) 08:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good link - I'm adding it to the article. Diego (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support keeping separate articles + cleanup and expansion 

message: I believe that one can say that boolean SAT, answer set programming and satisfiability modulo theories are all a certain form of constraint satisfaction.  It would be nice to see these mentioned and placed in the proper scheme of things. In particular, the constraint programming page lists a series of "domains" which are among the standard domains that the SMT solvers solve and compete on ... and I believe that the SMT solvers are wayyyy faster than any of the systems listed on that page.  More generally, a sketch relating constraint satisfaction to the more theoretical notion of satisfiability would also be appreciated. I find the situation a bit confusing.  Some clarity would be appreciated.  linas (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related systems 

message: This is a WP:Balance question: are Constraint Resolution Theories sufficiently mainstream that they should be mentioned in this article ("Solving" section)?  I can find no reference to those Theories other than a self-published book of the same name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.4.58 (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constraint Resolution Theories 

message: The approach effectively resolved modeling problems within the context of CAD/CAD (CAX) as applied in design, make, and maintain processes, including management of such through long life-cycles, for large-scale systems, such as aircraft. In particular, for a brief moment, the ICAD system, demonstrated the facility of the approach and contributed to successful completion of projects. Tongue in cheek, 'brief' means two decades. Much of the success came from the gluing abilities of LISP in the framework of silos of competence that had evolved in the application of computing in engineering disciplines. As such, this exercise was real-time, handling formidable problems and heavy program constraints and demands. jmswtlk (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry use