Content deleted Content added
Sam Staton (talk | contribs) Explanation about revert. |
|||
Line 14:
==Reverted edit==
I reverted an edit by an anonymous editor. The sentence "A nondeterministic algorithm as an algorithm that, given the same input, may produce different results." is not true: the important thing about a non-deterministic algorithm is that it may make (nondeterministic) choices during execution. Also the first paragraph, even as it stands, is certainly not a "formal definition". If this is unclear, I'm happy to discuss. [[User:Sam Staton|Sam Staton]] 10:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how the edit being made by an anonymous editor is relevant. That being said, the point of the summery of any article is to make the subject matter approachable.
The 'old summary' is too technical and most definitely not approachable. Considering the old summary to be 99% accurate and completely unapproachable, and considering the new summary to be 80% accurate and totally approachable, I believe the less accurate and approachable definition is the better choice. Wikipedia guidelines also dictate that summaries should be approachable even if they are slightly inaccurate. Users wanting to know more about the subject will continue reading and learn the more correct definition, and people uninterested will leave knowing, for the most part, what they came to learn. If we turn these readers off from reading the article by slapping them across the face with an overly complicated summary, the reader loses and the writer doesn't gain anything.
Your concern about the 'new summary' being inaccurately is unwarranted anyway. Picking apart the word , the inverse of deterministic, yields no importance to making choices. If something is determined then the output has already been decided even before completion. The inverse would be: If something is not determined then the output has not already been decided. There is no implication of choices being made, and if there were and you still think its extremely important, than add that to the simple summary.
I have brought back the simple summary and have fixed a typo in it. I have also renamed the 'formal' definition to 'explicit' definition per your suggestion, which I agree with.
| |||