Re: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without MiniModel

2017-03-14 Thread Christian Schulte 
Hi Conrad, I just added this behavior in the trunk! Cheers Christian

 

--

Christian Schulte, www.gecode.org/~schulte

Professor of Computer Science, KTH,  <mailto:cschu...@kth.se>
cschu...@kth.se

Expert Researcher, RISE SICS,  <mailto:christian.schu...@ri.se>
christian.schu...@ri.se

 

From: Drescher, Conrad [mailto:conrad.dresc...@sap.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 13:14
To: cschu...@kth.se; users@gecode.org
Subject: RE: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without
MiniModel

 

Hi Christian,

 

thanks a lot, that looks very good! For us, I don’t see a use case for
stronger reified variants…

 

Best wishes,

Conrad

 

Dr. Conrad Drescher

Senior Developer | Variant Configuration
P S/4HANA Idea – LoB Research & Development

SAP SE | Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 | 69190 Walldorf | Germany

T +49 6227 7-77888 | M +49 160 90684883 | E conrad.dresc...@sap.com
 <http://www.sap.com/> www.sap.com


Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail.


Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: 
 <http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx>
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx

Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige
vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich
erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine
Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte
benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen
Dank. 

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or
otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in
error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of
it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the
original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

 

 

From: Christian Schulte [mailto:cschu...@kth.se] 
Sent: Montag, 13. März 2017 13:08
To: Drescher, Conrad <conrad.dresc...@sap.com>; users@gecode.org
Subject: RE: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without
MiniModel

 

Hi Conrad,

 

I just had a look at the code and the second option seems to be quite easy
to do. The candidates for domain consistent propagation would be:

-  x = y, x = -y

-  x + y = c, x – y = c (provided that x, y, c do not exceed some
limit)

 

However, getting also the reified variants domain consistent would require
some (not much) work. Would that be needed as well?

 

Cheers

Christian

 

--

Christian Schulte, www.gecode.org/~schulte

Professor of Computer Science, KTH,  <mailto:cschu...@kth.se>
cschu...@kth.se

Expert Researcher, RISE SICS,  <mailto:christian.schu...@ri.se>
christian.schu...@ri.se

 

From: Drescher, Conrad [mailto:conrad.dresc...@sap.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 10:22
To: users@gecode.org
Cc: cschu...@kth.se
Subject: RE: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without
MiniModel

 

Hi Christian,

 

I had not even thought of the first option… the second option should be
easily sufficient for our purposes. If it were possible to make that special
case of “x == y” behave like “x IRT_EQ y” that would really benefit our use
case. We have no interest in using DOM for the general case of “IntExpr1 ==
IntExpr2”.

 

Many thanks for considering the idea, and the great software in general!

Conrad

 

Dr. Conrad Drescher

Senior Developer | Variant Configuration
P S/4HANA Idea – LoB Research & Development

SAP SE | Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 | 69190 Walldorf | Germany

T +49 6227 7-77888 | M +49 160 90684883 | E conrad.dresc...@sap.com
 <http://www.sap.com/> www.sap.com


Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail.


Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: 
 <http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx>
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx

Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige
vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich
erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine
Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte
benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen
Dank. 

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or
otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in
error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of
it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the
original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

 

From: Christian Schulte [mailto:cschu...@kth.se] 
Sent: Montag, 13. März 2017 09:41
To: Drescher, Conrad <conrad.dresc...@sap.com>; users@gecode.org
Subject: RE: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without
MiniModel

 

Hmmm, not that straightforward. There are two ideas here:

-  One idea would be that the

Re: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without MiniModel

2017-03-13 Thread Drescher, Conrad 
Hi Christian,

thanks a lot, that looks very good! For us, I don't see a use case for stronger 
reified variants...

Best wishes,
Conrad

Dr. Conrad Drescher
Senior Developer | Variant Configuration
P S/4HANA Idea - LoB Research & Development
SAP SE | Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 | 69190 Walldorf | Germany
T +49 6227 7-77888 | M +49 160 90684883 | E conrad.dresc...@sap.com
www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/>

Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail.


Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx

Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige 
vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich 
erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung 
oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie 
uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank.

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise 
confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are 
hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly 
prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. 
Thank you for your cooperation.




From: Christian Schulte [mailto:cschu...@kth.se]
Sent: Montag, 13. März 2017 13:08
To: Drescher, Conrad <conrad.dresc...@sap.com>; users@gecode.org
Subject: RE: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without 
MiniModel

Hi Conrad,

I just had a look at the code and the second option seems to be quite easy to 
do. The candidates for domain consistent propagation would be:

-  x = y, x = -y

-  x + y = c, x - y = c (provided that x, y, c do not exceed some limit)

However, getting also the reified variants domain consistent would require some 
(not much) work. Would that be needed as well?

Cheers
Christian

--
Christian Schulte, www.gecode.org/~schulte<http://www.gecode.org/~schulte>
Professor of Computer Science, KTH, cschu...@kth.se<mailto:cschu...@kth.se>
Expert Researcher, RISE SICS, 
christian.schu...@ri.se<mailto:christian.schu...@ri.se>

From: Drescher, Conrad [mailto:conrad.dresc...@sap.com]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 10:22
To: users@gecode.org<mailto:users@gecode.org>
Cc: cschu...@kth.se<mailto:cschu...@kth.se>
Subject: RE: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without 
MiniModel

Hi Christian,

I had not even thought of the first option... the second option should be 
easily sufficient for our purposes. If it were possible to make that special 
case of "x == y" behave like "x IRT_EQ y" that would really benefit our use 
case. We have no interest in using DOM for the general case of "IntExpr1 == 
IntExpr2".

Many thanks for considering the idea, and the great software in general!
Conrad

Dr. Conrad Drescher
Senior Developer | Variant Configuration
P S/4HANA Idea - LoB Research & Development
SAP SE | Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 | 69190 Walldorf | Germany
T +49 6227 7-77888 | M +49 160 90684883 | E 
conrad.dresc...@sap.com<mailto:conrad.dresc...@sap.com>
www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/>

Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail.


Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx

Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige 
vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich 
erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung 
oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie 
uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank.

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise 
confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are 
hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly 
prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. 
Thank you for your cooperation.



From: Christian Schulte [mailto:cschu...@kth.se]
Sent: Montag, 13. März 2017 09:41
To: Drescher, Conrad <conrad.dresc...@sap.com<mailto:conrad.dresc...@sap.com>>; 
users@gecode.org<mailto:users@gecode.org>
Subject: RE: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without 
MiniModel

Hmmm, not that straightforward. There are two ideas here:

-  One idea would be that there is an additional IPL (integer 
propagation level) called something like IPL_CHEAP_DOM which does domain 
propagation only if it is cheap.

-  The other idea would be that linear interprets the default IPL 
ILP_DEF differently: normally it uses IPL_BND but for special cases it uses 
IPL_DOM.

The second might be easier to pull off...

Cheers
Christian

--
Christian Schulte, www.gecode.org/~schulte<http://www.gecode.org/~schulte>

Re: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without MiniModel

2017-03-13 Thread Christian Schulte 
Hi Conrad,

 

I just had a look at the code and the second option seems to be quite easy
to do. The candidates for domain consistent propagation would be:

-  x = y, x = -y

-  x + y = c, x – y = c (provided that x, y, c do not exceed some
limit)

 

However, getting also the reified variants domain consistent would require
some (not much) work. Would that be needed as well?

 

Cheers

Christian

 

--

Christian Schulte, www.gecode.org/~schulte

Professor of Computer Science, KTH,  <mailto:cschu...@kth.se>
cschu...@kth.se

Expert Researcher, RISE SICS,  <mailto:christian.schu...@ri.se>
christian.schu...@ri.se

 

From: Drescher, Conrad [mailto:conrad.dresc...@sap.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 10:22
To: users@gecode.org
Cc: cschu...@kth.se
Subject: RE: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without
MiniModel

 

Hi Christian,

 

I had not even thought of the first option… the second option should be
easily sufficient for our purposes. If it were possible to make that special
case of “x == y” behave like “x IRT_EQ y” that would really benefit our use
case. We have no interest in using DOM for the general case of “IntExpr1 ==
IntExpr2”.

 

Many thanks for considering the idea, and the great software in general!

Conrad

 

Dr. Conrad Drescher

Senior Developer | Variant Configuration
P S/4HANA Idea – LoB Research & Development

SAP SE | Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 | 69190 Walldorf | Germany

T +49 6227 7-77888 | M +49 160 90684883 | E conrad.dresc...@sap.com
 <http://www.sap.com/> www.sap.com


Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail.


Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: 
 <http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx>
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx

Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige
vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich
erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine
Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte
benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen
Dank. 

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or
otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in
error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of
it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the
original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

 

From: Christian Schulte [mailto:cschu...@kth.se] 
Sent: Montag, 13. März 2017 09:41
To: Drescher, Conrad <conrad.dresc...@sap.com>; users@gecode.org
Subject: RE: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without
MiniModel

 

Hmmm, not that straightforward. There are two ideas here:

-  One idea would be that there is an additional IPL (integer
propagation level) called something like IPL_CHEAP_DOM which does domain
propagation only if it is cheap.

-  The other idea would be that linear interprets the default IPL
ILP_DEF differently: normally it uses IPL_BND but for special cases it uses
IPL_DOM.

 

The second might be easier to pull off…

 

Cheers

Christian

 

--

Christian Schulte,  <http://www.gecode.org/~schulte> www.gecode.org/~schulte

Professor of Computer Science, KTH,  <mailto:cschu...@kth.se>
cschu...@kth.se

Expert Researcher, RISE ICT/SICS,  <mailto:cschu...@sics.se>
cschu...@sics.se

 

From:  <mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org> users-boun...@gecode.org [
<mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org> mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org] On Behalf
Of Drescher, Conrad
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 09:47
To:  <mailto:users@gecode.org> users@gecode.org
Subject: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without
MiniModel

 

Hi there,

 

I have a question on the „equal“ constraint between two IntVars, let’s say
x0 with domain [1,3,5], and x1 with domain
[Int::Limits::min..Int::Limits::max].

 

If I write rel(home,x0,IRT_EQ,x1); x1 gets restricted to [1,3,5] as IRT_EQs
default propagation level is IPL_DOM. But if I write rel(home,x0 == x1);
using MiniModel x1 gets restricted to [1 – 5].

 

Apparently equalities between linear integer expressions get summarized into
a “linear” constraint in MiniModel, which of course is nice. This linear
constraint in turn seems to have a lot of special cases covered (which I
haven’t fully grasped yet). But I wonder whether it’d be possible to get the
case of there being just two variables back up to IPL_DOM instead of
IPL_BND? Of course, I understand you wouldn’t want to have IPL_DOM for
linear in general…

 

Many thanks!

Conrad

 

Dr. Conrad Drescher

Senior Developer | Variant Configuration
P S/4HANA Idea – LoB Research & Development

SAP SE | Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 | 69190 Walldorf | Germany

T +49 6227 7-77888 | M +49 160 90684883 | E
<mailto:conrad.dresc...@sap.com> conrad.dresc...@sap.com
 <http://www.sa

Re: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without MiniModel

2017-03-13 Thread Drescher, Conrad 
Hi Christian,

I had not even thought of the first option... the second option should be 
easily sufficient for our purposes. If it were possible to make that special 
case of "x == y" behave like "x IRT_EQ y" that would really benefit our use 
case. We have no interest in using DOM for the general case of "IntExpr1 == 
IntExpr2".

Many thanks for considering the idea, and the great software in general!
Conrad

Dr. Conrad Drescher
Senior Developer | Variant Configuration
P S/4HANA Idea - LoB Research & Development
SAP SE | Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 | 69190 Walldorf | Germany
T +49 6227 7-77888 | M +49 160 90684883 | E conrad.dresc...@sap.com
www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/>

Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail.


Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx

Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige 
vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich 
erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung 
oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie 
uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank.

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise 
confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are 
hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly 
prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. 
Thank you for your cooperation.



From: Christian Schulte [mailto:cschu...@kth.se]
Sent: Montag, 13. März 2017 09:41
To: Drescher, Conrad <conrad.dresc...@sap.com>; users@gecode.org
Subject: RE: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without 
MiniModel

Hmmm, not that straightforward. There are two ideas here:

-  One idea would be that there is an additional IPL (integer 
propagation level) called something like IPL_CHEAP_DOM which does domain 
propagation only if it is cheap.

-  The other idea would be that linear interprets the default IPL 
ILP_DEF differently: normally it uses IPL_BND but for special cases it uses 
IPL_DOM.

The second might be easier to pull off...

Cheers
Christian

--
Christian Schulte, www.gecode.org/~schulte<http://www.gecode.org/~schulte>
Professor of Computer Science, KTH, cschu...@kth.se<mailto:cschu...@kth.se>
Expert Researcher, RISE ICT/SICS, cschu...@sics.se<mailto:cschu...@sics.se>

From: users-boun...@gecode.org<mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org> 
[mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org] On Behalf Of Drescher, Conrad
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 09:47
To: users@gecode.org<mailto:users@gecode.org>
Subject: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without MiniModel

Hi there,

I have a question on the "equal" constraint between two IntVars, let's say x0 
with domain [1,3,5], and x1 with domain [Int::Limits::min..Int::Limits::max].

If I write rel(home,x0,IRT_EQ,x1); x1 gets restricted to [1,3,5] as IRT_EQs 
default propagation level is IPL_DOM. But if I write rel(home,x0 == x1); using 
MiniModel x1 gets restricted to [1 - 5].

Apparently equalities between linear integer expressions get summarized into a 
"linear" constraint in MiniModel, which of course is nice. This linear 
constraint in turn seems to have a lot of special cases covered (which I 
haven't fully grasped yet). But I wonder whether it'd be possible to get the 
case of there being just two variables back up to IPL_DOM instead of IPL_BND? 
Of course, I understand you wouldn't want to have IPL_DOM for linear in 
general...

Many thanks!
Conrad

Dr. Conrad Drescher
Senior Developer | Variant Configuration
P S/4HANA Idea - LoB Research & Development
SAP SE | Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 | 69190 Walldorf | Germany
T +49 6227 7-77888 | M +49 160 90684883 | E 
conrad.dresc...@sap.com<mailto:conrad.dresc...@sap.com>
www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/>

Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail.


Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx

Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige 
vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich 
erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung 
oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie 
uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank.

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise 
confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are 
hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly 
prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. 
Thank you for your cooperation.


___
Gecode users mailing list
users@gecode.org
https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users

Re: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without MiniModel

2017-03-13 Thread Christian Schulte 
Hmmm, not that straightforward. There are two ideas here:

-  One idea would be that there is an additional IPL (integer
propagation level) called something like IPL_CHEAP_DOM which does domain
propagation only if it is cheap.

-  The other idea would be that linear interprets the default IPL
ILP_DEF differently: normally it uses IPL_BND but for special cases it uses
IPL_DOM.

 

The second might be easier to pull off…

 

Cheers

Christian

 

--

Christian Schulte, www.gecode.org/~schulte

Professor of Computer Science, KTH,  
cschu...@kth.se

Expert Researcher, RISE ICT/SICS,  
cschu...@sics.se

 

From: users-boun...@gecode.org [mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org] On Behalf
Of Drescher, Conrad
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 09:47
To: users@gecode.org
Subject: [gecode-users] Question on IntVar-equalities with and without
MiniModel

 

Hi there,

 

I have a question on the „equal“ constraint between two IntVars, let’s say
x0 with domain [1,3,5], and x1 with domain
[Int::Limits::min..Int::Limits::max].

 

If I write rel(home,x0,IRT_EQ,x1); x1 gets restricted to [1,3,5] as IRT_EQs
default propagation level is IPL_DOM. But if I write rel(home,x0 == x1);
using MiniModel x1 gets restricted to [1 – 5].

 

Apparently equalities between linear integer expressions get summarized into
a “linear” constraint in MiniModel, which of course is nice. This linear
constraint in turn seems to have a lot of special cases covered (which I
haven’t fully grasped yet). But I wonder whether it’d be possible to get the
case of there being just two variables back up to IPL_DOM instead of
IPL_BND? Of course, I understand you wouldn’t want to have IPL_DOM for
linear in general…

 

Many thanks!

Conrad

 

Dr. Conrad Drescher

Senior Developer | Variant Configuration
P S/4HANA Idea – LoB Research & Development

SAP SE | Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16 | 69190 Walldorf | Germany

T +49 6227 7-77888 | M +49 160 90684883 | E conrad.dresc...@sap.com
  www.sap.com


Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail.


Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: 
 
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx

Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige
vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich
erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine
Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte
benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen
Dank. 

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or
otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in
error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of
it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the
original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

___
Gecode users mailing list
users@gecode.org
https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users