About the conception of timetable in manual, etc.

[wck3]

There is a sentence in manual: "This activities are scheduled simultaneously if the timetable is 100% filled."
By this do you mean "These activities are scheduled simultaneously if the timetable is 100% filled."?
In addition, what do you mean by timetable? As I use FET, I have an impression that timetable must be generated because there is a function in menu to do it. But in many places of manual "timetable" mean inputted raw data which may be illogical and unsolvable or inputted raw data which may be generated one or more possible schedules. If I understand "timetable" correctly, I would suggest to use another term for "timetable" in manual, e.x. "timetable data".

The following sentence seems to be ungrammtical:
"If there is only one subject, then it the easiest (and in (nearly) 100% filled timetables the only possible solution) to scheduled all at the same time."

[Liviu Lalescu]

Let's wait for Volker's answer, he is the author of the manual. It seems that there are indeed some minor mistakes.

[Volker Dirr]

There is a sentence in manual: "This activities are scheduled simultaneously if the timetable is 100% filled."
By this do you mean "These activities are scheduled simultaneously if the timetable is 100% filled."?

Yes, you are right. I mean "These ..."

In addition, what do you mean by timetable? As I use FET, I have an impression that timetable must be generated because there is a function in menu to do it. But in many places of manual "timetable" mean inputted raw data which may be illogical and unsolvable or inputted raw data which may be generated one or more possible schedules. If I understand "timetable" correctly, I would suggest to use another term for "timetable" in manual, e.x. "timetable data".

You are right, i hope i didn't mix that to much.
I tried to use the word "timetable" always if i talk about the solution.
So i don't mean the raw input data.
Please tell me the sentences where i used the word incorrect, so i can change it.

You talk about sentences like "These activities are scheduled simultaneously if the timetable is 100% filled." By this i mean the solution.
Example:
year 10 has group (class) 10a and 10b.
the week has 5 days and 6 hours per day, so there are overall 30 periods per week.
you add data (activities) with overall 26 hours to group (class) 10a and also 26 hours to group 10b.
so it might happen that 10a has free and 10b has a lesson. it is not simultaneously.
but if the students in year 10 must also select one course (maybe 10 biology, 10 physics, ...) with 4 hours, then i know that the solution (timetable) is 100% filled for the students. So i also know that these course activities are simultaneously even i didn't add such a constraint.
But if the groups (classes) 10a and 10b have less then 26 hours per week, then the timetable of the student is not 100% filled. So it might happen, that these course activities are not simultaneously.
So if i talk about 100% filled timetables, then i mean that there will be a few subgroups-timetables that are 100% filled if you generate a timetable. (But of course i already know that before adding the data.)

So "100% filled timetable" mean "there are at least 2 subgroups in a year that (will) have 100% filled (time)-table."

That is pretty long. Maybe i should write that one time at the beginning, but after that (as now) only "100% filled timetable"?

The following sentence seems to be ungrammtical:
"If there is only one subject, then it the easiest (and in (nearly) 100% filled timetables the only possible solution) to scheduled all at the same time."

Sorry, my English is pretty bad. Please tell me the correct grammar.

Maybe it is more clear if i write "If the students must select only one course, then it is in (nearly) 100% filled timetables only possible to scheduled all courses at the same time."?

I hope i will update the manual this weekend. I also need to change all sentences with "an activity can have max one activity tag", because the new FET can add more then one activity tag to an activity.

[wck3]

Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. But I have not understood the mentioned case. Does it presuppose some conditions?

Please do not blame yourself too hard because English is not your and also not my mother tongue. We need not to write English as good as an English does. If the others can not understand it, they will ask questions.
You can write Deutsch to me where you think it is necessary.

"lower then" -> "lower than"

[Volker Dirr]

[...] But I have not understood the mentioned case. Does it presuppose some conditions?
[...] You can write Deutsch to me where you think it is necessary.

It need just the conditions i wrote in the example. So the conditions are "groups/ courses are in the same year" and "all periods of at least 2 student tables ((sub-)group tables) are filled. (so a student can never have a gap.)"

If you still don't understand i can write write this in the German forum. or maybe just read the following link, because i also explained it in german language.
http://www.svws.nrw.de/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=winplan;action=display;num=1201249339;start=9#9

"lower then" -> "lower than"

ok. thank you. i will correct that.

[wck3]

not 100% filled out and CAN not 100% filled out

- speaking about actuality or possibility

Thank you for your patient answer. I thought that one adds activities and fills only 26 hours for each group, and the four-hours course is inculded in 26 hours. For "it might happen that 10a has free and 10b has a lesson. it is not simultaneously" and "But if the groups (classes) 10a and 10b have less then 26 hours per week, then the timetable of the student is not 100% filled" gave me impression that the adding is completed. Now suppose that the activities are so added that there remain four hours free. So one can cover these four hours with a four hours course. It follows that all thirty hours are filled. Suppose the activities are so added that there remain some hours free for one group. One may say a priori that the resulted timetable for this group cannot be filled out 100% although one does not know when a course shall with which teacher started.

In the generated timetable an activity appears with all its particularity (time, place, teacher, students). In this way a generated timetable is filled out. What you mean by "a filled out timetable" is not so filled out. You mean that if the activities are not added enough, one knows a priori the generated timetable cannot be filled out. You are speaking about possibility, rather than actuality. Imagine that if we have no help from program, we do fill a timetable with activity's name, teacher's name, and room's name. We do speak about a 100% filled out timetable. In this case we are speaking about actuality.

"These activities are scheduled simultaneously if the timetable is 100% filled." means
"These activities are necessarily scheduled simultaneously if every period of the timetable is filled with an or a part of activity". This can be misleading because one does not actually fill a timetable with a certain activity. Perhaps better: "These activities are necessarily scheduled simultaneously if activities are added enough so that no period of the timetable can be uncovered".  

[Volker Dirr]

[...] I thought that one adds activities and fills only 26 hours for each group, and the four-hours course is inculded in 26 hours.[...]

This is a "problem" of the terms.
in my opinion it is correct if i say:
Group "10a" has 26 hours, because i add overall 26 hours by activities to group "10a".
And Group "Course 1" has 4 hours, because i add 4 hours by activities to group "Course 1".

Of course a student say "I am in CLASS (not group) 10a and i have overall 30 hours. 26 hours with my "class" (he mean group) and 4 hours with my course (he mean group).
I think that is a problem of the terms "groups", "class", "course". We use it different in colloquial language.
To FET is is the same if the students say "I am in CLASS (he mean group) "course1" and 4 hours in COURSE "10a" (he mean group)."
So FET don't (need to) differ between term "class" and "course", because they are both groups.
I just want to still differ between that groups and i don't want to say group 10a has 30 hours per week, because in my opinion that is incorrect. the students has 26 hours in group "10a" and 4 hours in group "course1". of course the students has overall 26+4=30 hours per week.

"These activities are scheduled simultaneously if the timetable is 100% filled."
[...]
Perhaps better: "These activities are necessarily scheduled simultaneously if activities are added enough so that no period of the timetable can be uncovered".  

Yes, it must be something more like your suggestion. But if we want to describe 100% clear, then we also need to add the fact, that we talk about the timetable of a student. Maybe then it is more clear, just because of the different use of term "group", ...

So what do you think about "These activities are necessarily scheduled simultaneously if students (not groups!) of this activities have no uncovered period in their timetable."?

[Volker Dirr]

So what do you think about "These activities are necessarily scheduled simultaneously if students (not groups!) of this activities have no uncovered period in their timetable."?

I thought some more. Term "students" is problamatic, because a reader might mistake "students" with "students set".
a "students set" is a list of "years", "groups" and/or "subgroups".

a "student" can be (sometimes) a "subgroup". but sometimes a subgroup is "several students".

the terms sound to similar.

so i think i will use the term "pupil", "learner" or "scholar".


also term "cover" might be confusing. a reader maybe imagine that an activity must be represented. I read that some guys call "doing a representation table" as "cover planning".
so i think i should use term "used or blocked".

So i think i should write:
"These activities are necessarily scheduled simultaneously if pupils of these activities have no unused period in their timetable."
Do you agree?