On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Michal D. <michal.dobrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here X is telling us to use the constraint c1 (presumably b/c C is not
> shown) between the variables 1 and 3 (0 based). Likewise, use the
> transpose going the other direction (3,1).
Ouch, you are correct, I did not specify C. On retesting, though, it
looks like my results stay the same when I use:
arccon=:3 :0
'D c1 X'=: y
'n d'=: $D
adj =: ((<@#)&(i.n)) @ (0&<)
A =: adj X
C=: a: , c1 ; (|:c1)
ac =: > @ (1&{) @ (revise^:_) @ ((i.n)&;)
ac D
)
For longer scripts like this, I really need to get into the habit of
restarting J for every test. So that probably means I should be using
jhs.
> Given the structure of X, only variables 1 and 3 can possibly change. So if
> they are all changing something is definitely wrong.
This line of thinking does not make sense to me. I thought that the
requirement was that a 1 in D exists only when there is a valid
relationship along a relevant arc. If a 1 in D can also exist in the
absence of any relevant arc, I am back to needing a description of the
algorithm.
> Unfortunately I've run out of time to read the rest of your response but
> hopefully I can get through it soon. I've also wanted to write a simpler
> version of the algorithm where the right argument of ac is only D and it
> runs through all the arcs in the problem instead of trying to be smart
> about which ones could have changed.
Yes... I am currently suspicious of the "AC-3 algorithm".
In the case of symmetric consistency, I think that it's unnecessary
complexity, because the system converges on the initial iteration.
In the case of asymmetric consistency, I think that the work involved
in maintaining the data structures needed for correctness will almost
always exceed the work saved.
But I could be wrong. I am not sure yet if I understand the
underlying algorithm!
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
