> Could you please validate the 2nd link since it is not working for me.
You're right, it appears that the citeseerx site is having issues. That paper can also be found at http://www.thi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jukna/ftp/covering.pdf (the title is "On covering graphs by complete bipartite subgraphs"). > About you doubt, yes ALL the combination from the Input must be present in > the response (grouped). Think you're representing the same combinations using > a grouped/condensed view. Luke's comment is accurate; this is not what I meant. My understanding is that the groups have to represent all the given combinations (and no others); but is it OK for two groups to "overlap" partially? As an example, suppose the input was such that you had a matrix like this: A B C D 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 If we allow overlaps then (1 2 : ABC), (2 3 : CD) uses only two groups, while otherwise we need three groups (unless I overlooked something). If you've ever drawn Karnaugh maps for simplifying boolean functions this is very reminiscent of that. Luke's comment about considering the problem one level higher (so to speak) is rather good advice IMHO. This is certainly a difficult problem to solve exactly, but maintaining an approximate solution in the face of small adjustments to the input may be tractable; also reducing the problem space via isomorphisms could help a lot. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Code Jam" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/2a562f31-12dc-427d-aa03-37507cc47b42%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
