Talk:Cut a rectangle: Difference between revisions
→J implementation
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 118:
::: Tracking the path can still be done with your bit matrix, albeit its size should be (m+1) x (n+1) now. The advantage is it will never produce duplicate solutions, and due to symmetry, you'll only need to search in half or a quarter (if m = n) of the solution space. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 14:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: I've implemented your suggestion of asymmetric neighbor pruning at each step. I am not quite sure how I would implement the division path approach -- the data structures for that all seem more complex than the bit matrix (and neighbor location) approach I currently use. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 03:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: P.S. I know that we do not do timings on this site, but .... --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 11:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
::::: Er what? I guess you missed the fact that the first C program doesn't take arguments. You were looking at the time needed to calculate all size combos below 10. I changed it here to run 4x3 for a million times, and the run took .4 seconds. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 11:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Oh, oops, yes -- that would explain it. Thanks. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 12:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
| |||