Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so hard, or no
one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or... ?)
Cheers,
Peter
Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so hard, or no
one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or... ?)
Cheers,
Peter
Perhaps a little harder than it may appear, or as you suggest, people may be busy. In the worst case, a brute force solution should be easy to do.
I may try this later today, or tomorrow, once I'm done with the last papers I need for school and some other errands.
On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:19 AM, peter@rubyrailways.com wrote:
Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so hard, or no
one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or... ?)
Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so hard, or no
one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or... ?)Perhaps a little harder than it may appear, or as you suggest, people may
be busy. In the worst case, a brute force solution should be easy to do.
Seeing as how this quiz has been so quiet, here's a v quick (and very brute
force!) attempt: http://pastie.org/339925 - - please be kind! ![]()
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Matthew Moss <matt@moss.name> wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:19 AM, peter@rubyrailways.com wrote:
I may try this later today, or tomorrow, once I'm done with the last papers
I need for school and some other errands.
Minor point... I probably wasn't clear by "minimize group duplication."
In your code, you use dup_count in an attempt to avoid having a particular recipient's gift contain duplication candles. Actually, I like this requirement, although it wasn't what I meant. (Other subs: please try and make each gift without candle duplication.)
What I meant is that if I give Janet garden/lavender/orange, I should not also give Nancy garden/lavender/orange. I want a distinct combination for each recipient.
On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:44 PM, steven shingler wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Matthew Moss <matt@moss.name> wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:19 AM, peter@rubyrailways.com wrote:
Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so hard, or no
one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or... ?)Perhaps a little harder than it may appear, or as you suggest, people may
be busy. In the worst case, a brute force solution should be easy to do.Seeing as how this quiz has been so quiet, here's a v quick (and very brute
force!) attempt: http://pastie.org/339925 - - please be kind!
I am not about to partake but these requirements seem to conflict, no?
ppl = [:janet, :nancy, :betty]
candles = [:lavender => 3, :garden => 3, :orange => 3].
the following seems like the best answer to me but contains duplication,
lav, lav, ger
gar, or, or
gar, or, lav
the "uniquest" would be:
lav, lav, lav
gar, gar, gar
or. or. or
but it has more duplication whereas the least duplication has no uniqueness:
lav, gar, or
How is uniqueness supposed to be balanced against duplication?
einarmagnus
On 15.12.2008, at 23:07 , Matthew Moss wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:44 PM, steven shingler wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Matthew Moss <matt@moss.name> wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:19 AM, peter@rubyrailways.com wrote:
Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so hard, or no
one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or... ?)Perhaps a little harder than it may appear, or as you suggest, people may
be busy. In the worst case, a brute force solution should be easy to do.Seeing as how this quiz has been so quiet, here's a v quick (and very brute
force!) attempt: http://pastie.org/339925 - - please be kind!Minor point... I probably wasn't clear by "minimize group duplication."
In your code, you use dup_count in an attempt to avoid having a particular recipient's gift contain duplication candles. Actually, I like this requirement, although it wasn't what I meant. (Other subs: please try and make each gift without candle duplication.)
What I meant is that if I give Janet garden/lavender/orange, I should not also give Nancy garden/lavender/orange. I want a distinct combination for each recipient.
By buying more candles. ![]()
But seriously, it will depend on the input. If I had to choose between those options, I'd prefer to give individuals a variety of fragrances (avoid duplication more than enforcing uniqueness).
On Dec 15, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Einar Magnús Boson wrote:
On 15.12.2008, at 23:07 , Matthew Moss wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:44 PM, steven shingler wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Matthew Moss <matt@moss.name> >>> wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:19 AM, peter@rubyrailways.com wrote:
Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so hard, or no
one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or... ?)Perhaps a little harder than it may appear, or as you suggest, people may
be busy. In the worst case, a brute force solution should be easy to do.Seeing as how this quiz has been so quiet, here's a v quick (and very brute
force!) attempt: http://pastie.org/339925 - - please be kind!Minor point... I probably wasn't clear by "minimize group duplication."
In your code, you use dup_count in an attempt to avoid having a particular recipient's gift contain duplication candles. Actually, I like this requirement, although it wasn't what I meant. (Other subs: please try and make each gift without candle duplication.)
What I meant is that if I give Janet garden/lavender/orange, I should not also give Nancy garden/lavender/orange. I want a distinct combination for each recipient.
I am not about to partake but these requirements seem to conflict, no?
ppl = [:janet, :nancy, :betty]
candles = [:lavender => 3, :garden => 3, :orange => 3].the following seems like the best answer to me but contains duplication,
lav, lav, ger
gar, or, or
gar, or, lavthe "uniquest" would be:
lav, lav, lav
gar, gar, gar
or. or. orbut it has more duplication whereas the least duplication has no uniqueness:
lav, gar, orHow is uniqueness supposed to be balanced against duplication?
But seriously, it will depend on the input. If I had to choose between
those options, I'd prefer to give individuals a variety of fragrances
(avoid duplication more than enforcing uniqueness).
oops that sucks (should have read the quiz more carefully) - my solution
is enforcing uniqueness but doesn't care about duplication at all ![]()
Shouldn't take too much effort to add that though... will do tomorrow.
Cheers,
Peter
But seriously, it will depend on the input. If I had to choose between
those options, I'd prefer to give individuals a variety of fragrances
(avoid duplication more than enforcing uniqueness).
Ok so a beefed up version (no duplicates if possible, and as unique as
possible):
Cheers,
Peter