Talk:Topswops: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Repitition?: new section) |
(→Repitition?: Always terminating.) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I assume you're not allowed to repeat configurations? Otherwise you could swap infinitely for any initial setup that didn't start with 1. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 20:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC) |
I assume you're not allowed to repeat configurations? Otherwise you could swap infinitely for any initial setup that didn't start with 1. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 20:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
: I think I read that for all starting permutations you either start at or end up with one on top. There was no mention of it not terminating. There is [http://oeis.org/A000376 a variant] where you only count a perm if it ends up sorted when the one is on top. (It doesn't always). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 23:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:28, 23 November 2012
Speed?
Should I change the limits and ask for an output table for n in 1..8 instead? The idea is not to solicit heavily speed optimised solutions but to show an accurate solution in idiomatic code. --Paddy3118 22:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if there was not a better algorithm than the straightforward translation of the rounding process. So I think it's fine to let n from 1 to 10 in order to give an incentive to find a good algorithm.--Grondilu 23:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Repitition?
I assume you're not allowed to repeat configurations? Otherwise you could swap infinitely for any initial setup that didn't start with 1. --Mwn3d 20:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)