Re: Help: How to combine all 4's into least 6's- Is there a way to calculate what the minimum of 6's will be?
- From: "mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mensanator@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Jan 2006 10:50:22 -0800
gnh888@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks for your answer, you got it right.
>
> >> is 21 the minimum (some combinations are duplicated with 21 sets)
>
> Yes this is Exactly what I am looking for.
>
> >> how to write an algorithm that finds the minimum set.
>
> Exactly correct.
>
> >> Didn't you make another post showing a set of 20, or was I
> hallucinating?
>
> Yes absolutely correct. it was showing a set of 20, this set
> of 20 works but this is not my work.
> It was emailed to me 3 years ago.
> I can post the set of 20
Yes, please re-post it.
> but it does not prove this is the lowest
> number we can get.
> I believe we can get 19.
My first algorithm got 21 as the smallest covering set. It's possible
it could do better if I changed some things around to allow more
cases to be checked. I'll play around with it this weekend.
>
> The person who send it to me could not tell me how it was obtained. All
> he mention in a very brief email was that he was using a lot of 1's and
> 0's and was taking a huge amount of time.
Yeah, my program uses a lot of 1s and 0s also. I'll post some
explanations later when I have more time.
>
> This person who emailed me 3 years ago never emailed me back even after
> I send him a few email.
> He send me this URL
> http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~algorith/files/set-cover.shtml
> The problem I simply can't figure it out how to do what is mentioned on
> the URL.
> This is from a rare book..
> http://iris.gmu.edu/~khoffman/papers/set_covering.html
>
>
> The reason I removed my previous posting was because the question
> looked solved when actually the answer of 20 is not necessarily
> correct.
> I have no way of verifying if 20 is correct and how it was obtained.
That's why I want you to re-post it, I can easily verify whether or not
it is correct.
>
> That person told me he was using a lot of 0and 1 to get this answer.
> and it was taking a huge time to solve that problem.
I believe a brute force check using my algorithm would take 210! or
>>> print gmpy.fac(210)
10582362029223656378427428424334835305758990578716
90195623527375221444875324002101478493690117146739
54768265316577892528273760626189481169051055226066
65074118957389727368479141118013403943916006656189
58385010008177116826257256704776162675986612591949
75646029749546282594356217374097544153589482020891
75077473501255831346084682486417203023912212889600
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
loops to test all possibilities. Obviously, we don't want to have
to do that. I found 21 simply by testing 210 possibilities.
I'm pondering an open ended scheme that would simply run
forever and track the best answer.
> All I can tell you are the bits and pieces are remember and the only
> part of the email I got left.
>
> The person who send me the email, or did not know how to do it or did
> not want to be bothered with the explanations.
>
> But this is an interesting problem totally genuine.
Definitely. I just completed a program to generate the Cartesian
Product of a set with filters to create the subsets
Permutations with Replacement
Combinations with Replacement
Permutations without Replacement
Combinations without Replacement
Your problem is a case of Combinations without Replacement and
I'm using it to exercise my program.
>
> I'll be happy to post the 20 lines but I believe it will stop people
> form trying to post what I am looking for.
On the contrary, it gives me something to shoot for.
>
> What I am looking for is not the answer of 20 or 19 but the process how
> it is done,
I'll discuss the process in a later post. There is, of course,
no guarantee that my algorithm is the best.
>
> The process must be very interesting. This is what I am after, the
> process and the logic behind it.
> Thanks again for putting your computer to test this?
> I wrote a program but stopped 3 yesr ago because my computyer was not
> powerfull enough.
I'm using Python, which I highly recommend. Very high level. I'll post
the code and explain the logic behind it when I get a chance.
>
> gnh888
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Help: How to combine all 4's into least 6's- Is there a way to calculate what the minimum of 6's will be?
- From: gnh888@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Help: How to combine all 4's into least 6's- Is there a way to calculate what the minimum of 6's will be?
- From: mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Help: How to combine all 4's into least 6's- Is there a way to calculate what the minimum of 6's will be?
- From: gnh888@xxxxxxxxx
- Help: How to combine all 4's into least 6's- Is there a way to calculate what the minimum of 6's will be?
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by Date: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Previous by thread: Re: Help: How to combine all 4's into least 6's- Is there a way to calculate what the minimum of 6's will be?
- Next by thread: Re: Help: How to combine all 4's into least 6's- Is there a way to calculate what the minimum of 6's will be?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|