Talk:Glove problem

Commment

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe sex makespan for the deletion discussion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete this Article

This article has been nominated for deletion in the past with a vote passing to keep it. This was years ago. Still there are no citations, the article is incoherent and hardly usable, and has little to do with either math or safe sex. 66.224.232.34 (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Glove problem

The glove problem is different as stated on mathworld (which links to it from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CondomProblem.html as well) but it may be a bad staement, as it appears ok for corss contamination between doctors or cross contamination between patients to occur. Gloves of course are also handed, which gives rise to a whole other class of problems (pertaining to the handedness or ambdexterity of the examiners). The answer on mathworld also disagrees with the article. Rich Farmbrough 21:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You mention reversible condoms in the article. Are there any at all? As far as I know they all have a very strict "inside" and "outside" (as also mentioned by condom). That also makes sense, because the outside is perfumed or flavored, and the inside is usually coated with some type of spermicide (at least, it is very unlikely to be flavored). On the other hand, latex gloves are reversible, and a left-handed glove may be turned inside-out to make it right-handed. That means that the condom problem will have a higher solution than the glove problem, because the number of sides available to a condom is less than that with a glove. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 11:20, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

For that matter, how practical is it for one person to wear more than a couple condoms? -- Anonymous

This problem is quite far fetched... It looks like it were invented to try to get some attention of sex crazed engineering students or something... No really it's quite stupid. And surely it isn't safe sex.

This has got to be some kind of joke, surely! LOL -stray

Of course every explanation of a real life connection given is meant as tongue-in-cheek, no one sensible would suggest that doctors should wear several latex gloved outside each other either. It's just attempting at giving context for at purely mathematical problem in a more-or-less humorous way. The analogy used doesn't change the validity of the problem itself. PoiZaN (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Three years on and time for another delete discussion

This article went through a delete discussion. The debate seems fairly even and it was kept with the idea that it was to be rewritten as the glove problem.

Reading the comments my impression is that it would have been deleted except that for that rewrite possibility.

That was February 2006. Three years on and no Glove problem and remarkably not even a single word added to the article that there might be the glove problem (of which this article is a rather particular and peculiar example). That suggests a need for another deletion discussion: if it was worth keeping because it might be turned into the glove problem surely someone would have feel bothered another to just add a few words in it that it was a form of the glove problem.

But no one seemed to feel that the existence of this article mattered even that much--surely that is evidence that it lacks sufficient notably to be kept--otherwise someone would have made the effort--a line of words hardly takes any effort.--LittleHow (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. It means that you should pull your finger out and do the work that you want done. Be bold, rather than complain about the inactivity of a group of people of whom you are a member. You could have scratched your own itch with less effort than it took to write this very talk page complaint. Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Three more years

No modification to the article have been made. Google scholar does not return any result for "safe sex makespan". One may grant that the problem is a legit OR problem, but if it has not a single hit on google scholar, possibly does not belong here. Though a simple google search of 'makespan' brings one here. The concept of 'makespan' is better explained in Job Shop Scheduling. I have nominated the article for deletion again. --Lawikila (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, you haven't. But I'll complete the nomination for you, using the above text as the rationale. The debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe sex makespan (2nd nomination). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Notable...?

After 16 years, this article is still bad. It's had a cleanup tag for 4 years and no substantive edits for going on a decade. Clearly nobody cares enough to write it (least of all me!). How could it possibly be notable enough to keep at this point? 99.174.253.233 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Planning on an update

Well, I'm a brand new Wikipedia editor and I just came across this page looking for solutions to a related problem. It turns out that the solutions to that problem don't seem to be posted anywhere convenient on the Web, so I'm writing them up myself so that they are out there. Then I plan to come and fix this page (not only have the edits needed not been made in umpteen years, but the info on the page itself is just plain wrong!) when I have something to link to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boneheadmef (talk • contribs) 18:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)