Anonymous user
User talk:Nigel Galloway: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==15 puzzle solver==
It is not obvious the code you've submitted always detects a shortest possible solution; would you please provide any proofs or references?--[[User:Chmykh|Chmykh]] ([[User talk:Chmykh|talk]]) 16:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
==regarding Execute Ramsey Mathprog==
In re [[Execute Ramsey Mathprog]]; what were you trying to achieve with that? What language were you writing in? –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 13:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
==Anti primes:F#==
Please leave the note until it is fixed.
----
==Please restore the original EKG sequence task description==
It is too late to I invalidate other examples and your changes are not universally better to understand. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 12:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
İt does not invalidate any other task, İt says the same thıng without relyıng on the internal state, whıch ıs undefıned, of an algorithm that ıs not specıfıed.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 12:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
:: The extra credit. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 12:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
==Minor tweaks to Ruby Semordnilap==
Line 27 ⟶ 42:
:I noted that you are changing the wordlist of an established task with 15 solutions already. Would this invalidate the existing examples and if so, for what reason? THanks. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 13:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
== Inflammatory stuff ==
:Nigel, it's a great analysis, but technically adding an answer based on this is excluded from the task as I did not want people to just copy an analytical solution from somewhere (OEIS has one) and use that. What to do? Right now I've added a note to your example on the page to discourage others from going down the same route but left it in place. A workable compromise? --Paddy3118 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
::Well Paddy3118 you certainly seem to like these silly notes, certainly you are not a mathematician or a lawyer, so this should be interesting. According to the task description I should calculate the starting value. By what stretch of the English language do any of the solutions calculate the starting value?
::Let us compare my solution with the Python solution. On numerous combinatronics problems I have stressed the importance of separating the verification of candidates from the selection of candidates. In spite of this and whatever the drivel "Parameterised the number of sailors using an inner loop including the last mornings case" means the Python solution does not do this, and for that alone is worth no more than 0 out of 100.
::I contend that my solution does meet the task requirements because _ng verifies each candidate by applying the problems constrains using integer divisions and remainders and tests on remainders, any lawyer want to tell me otherwise?.
::The question is how do I select the candidates? To answer this I introduce the oxymoron 'honest sailors' as a literary device to add dramatic effect and a technical device to explain the selection.
::The case when 4 sailors are honest and one dishonest is constructed as the initial basis:
<pre>
26 5
20 4
</pre>
::It is impossible to have 2 dishonest sailors unless at least 1 sailor is dishonest. So I suggest the case for 2 dishonest sailors is a proper subset of the set of solutions for 1 dishonest sailor which I shall represent as 20+g*20. I try each of these values against my verification procedure which returns false until g=2 giving the answer:
<pre>
96 19
76 15
60 12
</pre>
::It is impossible to have 3 dishonest sailors unless at least 2 sailors are dishonest. So I suggest the case for 3 dishonest sailors is a proper subset of the set of solutions for 2 dishonest sailors which I shall represent as 60+g*80. I try each of these values against my verification procedure which returns true with g=0 giving the answer:
<pre>
121 24
96 19
76 15
60 12
</pre>
::It is impossible to have 4 dishonest sailors unless at least 3 sailors are dishonest. So I suggest the case for 4 dishonest sailors is a proper subset of the set of solutions for 3 dishonest sailors which I shall represent as 60+g*320. I try each of these values against my verification procedure which returns false until g=3 giving the answer:
<pre>
2496 499
1996 399
1596 319
1276 255
1020 204
</pre>
::It is impossible to have 5 dishonest sailors unless at least 4 sailors are dishonest. So I suggest the case for 5 dishonest sailors is a proper subset of the set of solutions for 4 dishonest sailors which I shall represent as 1020+g*1280. I try each of these values against my verification procedure which returns true with g=0 giving the answer:
<pre>
3121 624
2496 499
1996 399
1596 319
1276 255
1020 204
</pre>
::So in spite of stopping and starting I find the solution with 8 candidates. Which is certainly more calculated than the Python candidate selection which would better be described as brainless. As with all good AI programs on classical computers it is possible to ask the program to explain its reasoning, the output for the 100 case is [[Sailors, coconuts and a monkey problem/Ruby output 100 honest sailors]]. As you can see it selects 4950 candidates to find the solution for 100 sailors, less than the Python solution uses for 5 sailors.
::Compromise? You must decide what calculate means. If it means calculate, then you should specify the equation you want to use to calculate the correct value in steps 1 and 3 which must simply be verified in steps 2 and 4. You should then stick a silly note on just about every solution. If it is acceptable to provide candidates to the verification procedure until a correct solution is found, then I see no reason to consider my solution less worthy than any other (actually I think it's better than any other) and you should remove your silly note from my solution.
--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 14:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
==Sub-headings in task language examples==
Please reserve subheadings for alternate full example programs in tasks and use bold for sub-headings within tasks as is seen in many RC tasks. Thanks. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 12:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
| |||