Talk:Optimal ET sequence: Difference between revisions
re |
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
:::: I agree that "supporting" should be explicitly mentioned in any description of the requirements of the ETs in an "optimal ET sequence". [[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 20:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | :::: I agree that "supporting" should be explicitly mentioned in any description of the requirements of the ETs in an "optimal ET sequence". [[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 20:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::::: Yes, Flora, I should have mentioned, that even back when it was simply called "val list", GPVs / uniform maps were used to make the sequence. | |||
:::::: Dave, I looked into it, and it seems that "supporting" was already explicitly on the page, but Flora has just now improved things by making it link to the article I wrote about the concept. | |||
:::::: Okay. So the page has been moved. Thanks Flora. And thanks Dave and Fredg999 for helping us sort this all out. But work remains. We still have many occurrences of "Optimal GPV sequence" across the wiki. I offer to do the work myself to change every occurrence to "Optimal ET sequence" across the wiki. I will do this over the weekend unless I hear back otherwise from anyone. | |||
:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 17:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Sorted by complexity? == | == Sorted by complexity? == | ||