|
The best one is "temporary insanity". How convenient!
|
|
|
|
|
That's also known as parenthood.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
As a non-parent, suddenly that explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
yeah.. for sure... temporary insanity. we'd live in a perfect world. I hope there are valid ways to demonstarte that moment of insanity
|
|
|
|
|
In which case the pleader should be instantly neutered and locked in a padded cell for a substantial term. I'm a great believer in eugenics 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
~ singularity's brink ?
are we near the nether edge where real
and virtual are just a-and-b-sides for
the theme music for the march of genes?
analogue wonder of our bag of meat and
bones eclipsed by a digital perfection
where we can wallow in spotless dreams?
communal fragmented into isolated pods
reveling in the instantaneous illusion
of sharing thought divorced from being?
hunkered down in always online bunkers,
who will see the new barbed-wire fence
surrounding shrinking personal freedom?
to me the choice's clear: to hell with
virtual suicide by FaceBook or Twitter ~
published under the CPOPL License (Code Project Open Poetic License)
«... thank the gods that they have made you superior to those events which they have not placed within your own control, rendered you accountable for that only which is within you own control For what, then, have they made you responsible? For that which is alone in your own power—a right use of things as they appear.» Discourses of Epictetus Book I:12
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. The evolution of homo sapiens resulting in the creation of machines that allow us to create virtual realities simply points out how what has always exist: the need to escape the dull and boring present into magical/violent/sensual/transwarp alternates.
BillWoodruff wrote: to hell with virtual suicide by FaceBook or Twitter
There's always the "resurrect" button, you know. 
Latest Article - Contextual Data Explorer
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote a small (85 lines of C# code) backtraking Sudoku solver - primarily to illustrate the idea of backtracking. (After all, the fun of Sudoku is not "Press this button to se the solution", but exercizing your brain  .)
Wikipedia claims that the general problem of solving a Sudoku "is known to be NP-complete". So I thought finding a Sudoku problem that could really stress a PC would be simple. Not true. The most difficult I have found until now solves in 3.4 milliseconds, evaluating about 110,000 tentative digit placements (about 30 ns per evaluation).
A typical "trait" of backtracking is that on the average it usually performs well, but the worst case performance may be bad. So I am searching for examples of that worst-case performance .
Where can I find Sudoku boards that are truly difficult to solve, even for a PC?
NP complete problems are extremely dependent on problem size, and 9 by 9 is not exactly a large problem. My solver can handle any board size, but I made a very quick and dirty user interface that handles 9 by 9 only, so I would like to stay within that size.
|
|
|
|
|
Try to give your prog 9x9 empty squares!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
That's actually the most simple one to solve  (but there are multiple solutions).
modified 13-Sep-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I would think that less much clues with a multitude of solutions gives you a deeper search tree. I would not be surprised if that takes more time...
The most simple would be with one missing square.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Or no missing squares...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
True that!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
My backtracker makes 970 checks to fill an empty Sudoku board correctly, in about 30 microseconds.
Don't ask me how that CPU can do the check in 30 ns/check, but it does. The program has a single thread; before I started coding I was considering how to do multithreaded backtracking, but when a typical problem is solved in a handful milliseconds, then you don't do multithreading to improve response time. Actually, one reason why I would like a really difficult, time consuming one is to see if I can make it faster by multithreading.
|
|
|
|
|
You might not find what you're after. The accepted minimum number of clues that produces a *unique* solution is currently thought to be 17 so I'd look for boards with that number of clues. However less clues doesn't make it "harder", it just means there are possibly multiple solutions. If I was you I'd probably make my own starting solutions using a range of clues form various locations to see if you can work out what is a computationally hard board yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
I would think that less much clues with a multitude of solutions gives you a deeper search tree. I would not be surprised if that takes more time...
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
And then again, zero clues (all empty board) is super-simple, for finding the fist solution.
I have not yet given my solver any "search further" function; the first solution is accepted. I haven't often seen "real" uses of backtracking with a need to find all solutions, so until now I haven't seen the need for it. Maybe finding all solutions would take significantly more time.
|
|
|
|
|
Just to get things straightened out:
The minimum number of squares for a solvable sudoku is 17. It may take more. Worked out long ago by a mathematician. Note that this is not a Japanese invention - it just became popular there, first.Sudoku is solved logically - not by trial-and-error. The contents of the boxes are determine uniquely to solve it. As the puzzle gets more complex, the required abstractions are more complex - but the values entered are deduced - not guessed.A Sudoku with more than one solution (like many here suggested) is not solvable. Sudoku, as a proper puzzle, must have one and only one solution or an impasse will be caused whereby a unique entry in a particular square cannot be determined.
The computational solution, I was disappointed to learn, was basically trial and error, with unwinding at an impasse and retrial until the board is completed. This is very different for determining difficulty than the human-difficult. For the same reason, the computer would solve a Sudoku that has multiple solutions - it doesn't check for that (does it?). Thus, difficulty by PC standards will probably need to be determined by using many puzzle version and looking for a trend, or analysis on the part of the programmer to determine how to force his algorithm to be stressed.
I first became interested in Sudoku when it was comparatively new in US Newspapers. I was interested in solving it analytically by computer. The simple algorithm worked, solving in 3-4 passes. Then more difficult puzzles began to appear. I came up with another layer. Fortunately . . . with a bool didChange flag so it wouldn't iterate forever. It rapidly became more complex than I had time for. I must say, however, converting the thought process into code was a great exercise.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Sudoku is solved logically
In a strictly logical sense I trust that you are correct. But [EDIT: methinks] the OP has another approach. Above we are (at least I am) discussing how to stress-test that approach.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Include in my post (my disappointment that computational solutions are by trial-and-error).
It would still be an improper test if there are multiple answers. I assume that it would even speed up the solution as each pathway reduces the chances of a rollback.
However - I do have an idea on how to stress-test it! Initialize it so that it cannot be solved. That's as difficult as it gets. If the algorithm doesn't check for an invalid initialization (i.e., pre-violation of rules) then it will always fail. What Fun ! ! ! !
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
There are computational solvers that doesn't do it by trial and error. Check out Sudoku Solver by Andrew Stuart[^]
It allows you to step the solution, and it gives you an explanation for all the strategies used.
|
|
|
|
|
How do you distinguish between "trial and error" and "checking if conditions are met"?
|
|
|
|
|
I only briefly looked at the page - I couldn't tell how it would be solved computationally (or not) by analytical methods.
The depth of algorithms is pretty impressive to solve "all" Sudoku boards. That's what I mean when I say Not Trial and Error. No backtracking. The algorithm must use India Ink, not a pencil. I just couldn't tell from the initial page from your link if that's what's being done. It would be very impressive.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't "use pencils", there are several examples where it fails.
You can pick examples, scroll to the bottom.
There is a brute force solver as well, click the "solution count" button.
|
|
|
|
|
You use "trial and error" as if it you want to label one method as extremely inferior, compared to your favorite method.
No matter what method you use, you do not come up with all the missing 64 (or possibly fewer, if you have more than 17 clues) in parallel, as a single atomic result of deep thought. Even if you do not pronounce it, in your head you will "try out" suggestions for filling in the squares, and reject those that breaks the rules.
An algorithm for evaluating possibilities in turn, and reject those that do not satisfy requirements, is not an inferior "trial and error" or a highly respected "logical" solution depending on the order in which you evaluate the possibilities. They are all logical, systematic methods - call them "algorithms" if you like. One algorithm may be faster than another, simpler than another, require less temporary space than another. But one algorithm doesn't have "higher moral standing" (as "logical") than another algorithm (branded as inferior "trial and error") because it evaluates options in a different way.
The way I wrote my backtracking currently reports the first solution found (or failure, if there is no solution), ignoring other solutions. So it assumes that the clues are properly set up, no pre-violation of rules. Now I made a quick check: To the board that requires 110,000 checks to find the one solution, I added another clue that makes it non-solvable. It took 59,000 checks to detect that it wasn't solvable.
For robustness, I could do a check for pre-violations, but that would be a oneshot setup issue that probably would take less than a microsecond. It wouldn't at all affect or be affected by the number of iterations/recursions.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
