I also think that it's better to rename it to 0/1 Knapsack

Lol I literally left the question as a an open discussion. The title of the actual article uses this convention. I pretty sure that the article consistently uses that convention. We're blocking merging for a change that I did not make?

Uhh, I feel like the discussion itself is a bit of a bike shedding (as in, it doesn't really matter which way we name it).

Nevertheless, scholarly publications seem to use "0-1 knapsack": 1, 2, 3, 4. Unless anyone feel strongly about renaming (and can provide solid reasoning for it), I'd leave the name as is.

Sorry, of course I didn't mean to block the PR. I just thought it was valid change to rename 0-1 to 0/1 because I googled the topic and in most cases, it appeared as 0/1 knapsack. So my review was meant to just commit the name change🙌
But, I agree with adamant - there's not much difference in how the topic is named, so both options are valid

It sounds like we're leaving it then and can merge?