Can you post the unfun, brute-force approach, and maybe we can whittle it down?
LP^> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 07:23:24PM +0100, Adam Rice wrote: > Quoting A. Pagaltzis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > I don't see the problem. You have 36 (or 120) pairs or encoded > > characters to allocate, and up to that many input characters. > > Looks like just one straightforward mapping. > > The problem is that there are 371993326789901217467999448150835200000000 > possible arrangements of the 36 characters. If most of those work then you'll > find one pretty quickly, but if there's only one solution, it'll take > something like a million million million million years to find it with a brute > force approach. I've thought of some ways of making a brute-force approach a > bit smarter and reduce the search space a bit, but I haven't found a quick way > of determining if there's a solution or not. For now, the only way to > determine that something like > > print"............................." > > is unencodable is to try every possible arrangement of characters. > > Adam > > -- > Adam Rice -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Blackburn, Lancashire, England
