In article 87iodoakft@elektro.pacujo.net,
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
The test puzzle that you posted has 23 values already filled in. How
does it perform on harder puzzles with only 17 clues (the proven
minimum)? One would expect it to be
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
BartC b...@freeuk.com:
As Chris mentioned, when I say 'faster than C', I mean X running my
algorithm was faster then C running Marko's algoritim (on Ian's data).
This was just an illustration of algorithm being more
Am 30.03.15 um 08:50 schrieb Ian Kelly:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Be careful with the benchmark comparisons. Ian's example can be solved
with the identical algorithm in eight different ways (four corners, left
or right). I ran the example with my
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Christian Gollwitzer aurio...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 30.03.15 um 08:50 schrieb Ian Kelly:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Be careful with the benchmark comparisons. Ian's example can be solved
with the identical algorithm in
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
The relationship between row, column and box can be rearranged. Some of
these are already covered by the rotations proposed earlier, where for a 90
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
The relationship between row, column and box can be rearranged. Some of
these are already covered by the rotations proposed earlier, where for a 90
degree rotate, row becomes column and column becomes row. But in a similar
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Christian Gollwitzer aurio...@gmx.de
wrote:
Am 30.03.15 um 08:50 schrieb Ian Kelly:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net
wrote:
Be careful with the benchmark comparisons. Ian's example can be
mr.smit...@gmail.com:
You say neater implementation
I'll send you to the code-golf site:
http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/446/38632 this is brute force.
There are some really good implementations in other languages that
arent brute force.
It ain't neater if it don't fit in your posting
On 03/30/2015 03:29 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Christian Gollwitzer aurio...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 30.03.15 um 08:50 schrieb Ian Kelly:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Be careful with the benchmark comparisons. Ian's example can
On 29/03/2015 08:57, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
Am 29.03.15 um 05:06 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
[OT: Competing with compiled C code]
I'm not one of those people who think that C is by definition the fastest
language conceivable. (People who believe this sometimes make an
exception
for
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:17:23 +0100, BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
On 29/03/2015 22:21, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 28/03/2015 23:50, BartC wrote:
On 28/03/2015 03:39, Sayth wrote:
Good test for pypy to see where it's speed sits between C and Python.
Python 3.1: 1700 seconds (normal Python
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 03:10 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:50 am, BartC wrote:
(X is my own interpreted language, which is where my interest in this
is. This had been generally
On 29/03/2015 13:01, BartC wrote:
On 29/03/2015 11:35, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Anyway, we don't really know where the confusion lies. Perhaps the
description is misleading, or I'm just confused, or Bart's idea of brute
force is not the same as my idea of brute force, or perhaps he really
is a
On 29/03/2015 11:35, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
That's why I can't help but feel that, *given the description we've seen*,
perhaps Bart's brute force code doesn't actually solve the problem, and
that's why it is so fast. I'm reminded of the recent thread where somebody
claimed to have a significant
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk:
One thing I have come to rely on over the years is never, ever trust
your gut instincts about Python performance, you're almost inevitably
wrong. When I first came across the Norvig solver I made a change,
purely for fun, to replace two calls to len()
BartC b...@freeuk.com:
As Chris mentioned, when I say 'faster than C', I mean X running my
algorithm was faster then C running Marko's algoritim (on Ian's data).
This was just an illustration of algorithm being more important than
language.
Be careful with the benchmark comparisons. Ian's
On 29/03/2015 19:03, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
BartC b...@freeuk.com:
As Chris mentioned, when I say 'faster than C', I mean X running my
algorithm was faster then C running Marko's algoritim (on Ian's data).
This was just an illustration of algorithm being more important than
language.
Be
Am 29.03.15 um 05:06 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
I'm not one of those people who think that C is by definition the fastest
language conceivable. (People who believe this sometimes make an exception
for hand-crafted assembly, which is ironic since these days the best C
optimizing compilers can
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Anyway, we don't really know where the confusion lies. Perhaps the
description is misleading, or I'm just confused, or Bart's idea of brute
force is not the same as my idea of brute force, or perhaps he
On 29/03/2015 04:06, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:50 am, BartC wrote:
But using X *and* my own brute-force algorithm, the same puzzle took 2
seconds to solve - faster than C!
But, when you tell me that your very own personal interpreted language,
which I assume nobody else
On 29/03/2015 00:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:50 AM, BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
Using the OP's algorithm, and testing with the 'hard' puzzle posted by Ian
Kelly, I got these approximate results:
Python 3.1: 1700 seconds (normal Python interpreter)
PyPy:
On 29/03/2015 19:03, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
BartC b...@freeuk.com:
As Chris mentioned, when I say 'faster than C', I mean X running my
algorithm was faster then C running Marko's algoritim (on Ian's data).
This was just an illustration of algorithm being more important than
language.
Be
On 29/03/2015 21:59, BartC wrote:
On 29/03/2015 00:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:50 AM, BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
Using the OP's algorithm, and testing with the 'hard' puzzle posted
by Ian
Kelly, I got these approximate results:
Python 3.1: 1700 seconds
On 28/03/2015 23:50, BartC wrote:
On 28/03/2015 03:39, Sayth wrote:
Good test for pypy to see where it's speed sits between C and Python.
I've spent the last hour or so doing such tests.
Using the OP's algorithm, and testing with the 'hard' puzzle posted by
Ian Kelly, I got these approximate
On 29/03/2015 22:19, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 29/03/2015 21:59, BartC wrote:
On 29/03/2015 00:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:50 AM, BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
Using the OP's algorithm, and testing with the 'hard' puzzle posted
by Ian
Kelly, I got these approximate
On 29/03/2015 22:21, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 28/03/2015 23:50, BartC wrote:
On 28/03/2015 03:39, Sayth wrote:
Good test for pypy to see where it's speed sits between C and Python.
Python 3.1: 1700 seconds (normal Python interpreter)
PyPy: 93 seconds
C unoptimised: 17
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:39:40 AM UTC-7, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
A lot of discussion was generated by the good, old fibonacci sequence. I
have yet to find practical use for fibonacci numbers. However, the
technique behind a sudoku solver come up every now and again in
practical
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:50 AM, BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
Using the OP's algorithm, and testing with the 'hard' puzzle posted by Ian
Kelly, I got these approximate results:
Python 3.1: 1700 seconds (normal Python interpreter)
PyPy: 93 seconds
C unoptimised: 17 seconds
On 27-Mar-2015 15:09, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/27/2015 09:56 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
So what I am talking about is called a satisfactory puzzle, which is
a subset of a proper puzzle.
That is impossible to define, though, because some people are mental
On 28/03/2015 03:39, Sayth wrote:
Good test for pypy to see where it's speed sits between C and Python.
I've spent the last hour or so doing such tests.
Using the OP's algorithm, and testing with the 'hard' puzzle posted by
Ian Kelly, I got these approximate results:
Python 3.1: 1700
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:50 am, BartC wrote:
(X is my own interpreted language, which is where my interest in this
is. This had been generally faster than Python until PyPy came along. It
does however use a pure byte-code interpreter, so the result is not too
bad.
But using X *and* my own
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:50 am, BartC wrote:
(X is my own interpreted language, which is where my interest in this
is. This had been generally faster than Python until PyPy came along. It
does however
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Excluding that, the consensus seems to be that Perl's regexes are stronger
than Chomsky regular expressions, but nobody quite knows how much stronger.
It's likely that they are at least as powerful as
Am 26.03.15 um 00:04 schrieb Mark Lawrence:
On 25/03/2015 22:50, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:39 pm, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
I have yet to find practical use for fibonacci numbers.
Many people have failed to find practical uses for many things from
mathematics. Doesn't mean
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com wrote:
There seems to be disagreement over the use of the term 'trial and error'.
How about this for a revised wording -
It should be possible to reach that solution by a sequence of logical
deductions. Each step in the
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote in message
news:87fv8sndw1@elektro.pacujo.net...
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
Here is another python-based sudoku solver -
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/PADS/Sudoku.py
From its docstring -
A proper Sudoku puzzle must have a unique
On 03/27/2015 09:35 AM, Frank Millman wrote:
Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote in message
news:551557b3.5090...@davea.name...
But now I have to disagree about true Sudoku puzzle. As we said
earlier, it might make sense to say that puzzles that cannot be solved
that way are not reasonable
On 03/27/2015 05:25 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com wrote:
There seems to be disagreement over the use of the term 'trial and error'.
How about this for a revised wording -
It should be possible to reach that solution by a sequence of
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
But now I have to disagree about true Sudoku puzzle. As we said earlier,
it might make sense to say that puzzles that cannot be solved that way are
not reasonable ones to put in a human Sudoku book. But why isn't it a true
Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote in message
news:551557b3.5090...@davea.name...
But now I have to disagree about true Sudoku puzzle. As we said
earlier, it might make sense to say that puzzles that cannot be solved
that way are not reasonable ones to put in a human Sudoku book. But why
On 03/27/2015 09:25 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
But now I have to disagree about true Sudoku puzzle. As we said earlier,
it might make sense to say that puzzles that cannot be solved that way are
not reasonable ones to put in a
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
So what I am talking about is called a satisfactory puzzle, which is
a subset of a proper puzzle.
That is impossible to define, though, because some people are mental
acrobats and can do a lot of deep analysis in their heads. What's
satisfactory to you may not
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
On the other hand, I play some games which I can only solve with the aid
of a computer. Is that cheating? Not for some games. I have some
challenges for which I need/prefer to use a wrench, or a screwdriver, or a
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
On 03/27/2015 09:56 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
So what I am talking about is called a satisfactory puzzle, which is
a subset of a proper puzzle.
That is impossible to define, though,
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
So what I am talking about is called a satisfactory puzzle, which is
a subset of a proper puzzle.
That is impossible to define, though, because some people are mental
acrobats and can
On 03/27/2015 09:56 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
So what I am talking about is called a satisfactory puzzle, which is
a subset of a proper puzzle.
That is impossible to define, though, because some people are mental
acrobats and can do a lot of deep analysis in
On 27/03/2015 14:09, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/27/2015 09:56 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
So what I am talking about is called a satisfactory puzzle, which is
a subset of a proper puzzle.
That is impossible to define, though, because some people are mental
On 26/03/2015 00:07, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
It takes about 2 seconds for my Python program to find the answer but it
spends a total of 110 seconds to exhaust the problem space.
The analogous C program finished the whole thing
On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 7:10:54 AM UTC-7, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/27/2015 09:56 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
So what I am talking about is called a satisfactory puzzle, which is
a subset of a proper puzzle.
That is impossible to define, though,
On 03/27/2015 07:09 AM, Dave Angel wrote:
[snip]
I know, let's use regular expressions g
This is totally OT, but...
There was a recent (2015-03-23) item on The Daily WTF web site concerning
regular expressions.
Take a look at http://thedailywtf.com/articles/regularly-expressing-hate
Good test for pypy to see where it's speed sits between C and Python.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Chris Angelico wrote:
Part of me is quaking in fear... the other part looking on in morbid
fascination. Can you build a regexp that proves a Sudoku grid
solvable?
Well, it's *theoretically* possible, since there are a finite
number of possible sudoku puzzles, so if nothing else you
could just
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 01:19 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
Part of me is quaking in fear... the other part looking on in morbid
fascination. Can you build a regexp that proves a Sudoku grid
solvable?
Perl's regular expressions can run arbitrary code using ?{...} which
technically makes them Turing
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 05:18 am, sohcahto...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 7:10:54 AM UTC-7, Dave Angel wrote:
I know, let's use regular expressions g
--
DaveA
You jest, but...
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=471168
I'm not a Perl expert, but I call that cheating,
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote in message
news:87r3sdnw5t@elektro.pacujo.net...
I post below a sudoku solver. I eagerly await neater implementations (as
well as bug reports).
Here is another python-based sudoku solver -
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/PADS/Sudoku.py
From its
Abhiram R abhi.darkn...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Abhiram R abhi.darkn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2015 5:39 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
$ cat sudoku2.dat
. . . 7 . . . . .
1 . . . .
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
Here is another python-based sudoku solver -
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/PADS/Sudoku.py
From its docstring -
A proper Sudoku puzzle must have a unique solution, and it should be
possible to reach that solution by a sequence of logical deductions
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
Here is another python-based sudoku solver -
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/PADS/Sudoku.py
From its docstring -
A proper Sudoku puzzle must have a unique solution, and it should be
On Mar 26, 2015 6:31 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
Here is another python-based sudoku solver -
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/PADS/Sudoku.py
From its docstring -
A proper Sudoku puzzle must have a unique solution, and it should be
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
In fact, the trial-and-error technique is used in automated theorem
proving:
Lean provers are generally implemented in Prolog, and make proficient
use of the backtracking engine and
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
That's trial and error, aka, reductio ad absurdum.
Okay, I've probably used single-lookahead trial and error in my
Here's my Python sudoku solver which I wrote about 10 years ago.
http://petef.22web.org/sudoku/
It works by applying the solving techniques I came up with. No trial and
error or backtracking is used, so it is not up to cracking the very
hardest puzzles. Run time is 15 ms to 45 ms on a 2009
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
On 03/26/2015 08:37 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
Nothing. And solving a Sudoku puzzle - or any other puzzle - should
require no guessing. It should be possible to solve purely by logic.
Same goes for every other kind of puzzle
Dave Angel da...@davea.name:
When in a playful mood, I wonder if all the Sudoku puzzles out there
are just permutations of a few hundred written by Will Shortz.
A sudoku solver can be trivially turned into a puzzle generator:
On 03/26/2015 10:41 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
that's already been proven. So, that's why I would avoid guessing.
I've written a lot of solvers for various puzzles. Minesweeper,
Sudoku, a binary Sudoku-like puzzle that I don't really have a good
name for, several others. Every time, I've tried
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net:
I have optimized my solution slightly:
1. precalculated integer division operations (big savings)
2. interned integers (little savings)
The example above now finishes in 41 minutes on my computer. (The C
version finishes in 13 seconds).
Any considered
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
That's trial and error, aka, reductio ad absurdum.
Okay, I've probably used single-lookahead trial and error in my
reasoning at some point. But the example you give is equivalent to the
On 03/26/2015 08:37 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Frank Millman fr...@chagford.com:
Here is another python-based sudoku solver -
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/PADS/Sudoku.py
From its docstring -
A proper Sudoku puzzle
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
I don't think that I have used trial and error, in my head or
otherwise, in any sudoku I have ever solved.
Of course you have. This here can't be a 2 because if it were a 2, that
there would have to be a 5, which is impossible. Thus, the only
remaining
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
On 03/26/2015 10:41 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
that's already been proven. So, that's why I would avoid guessing.
I've written a lot of solvers for various puzzles. Minesweeper,
Sudoku, a binary Sudoku-like puzzle that I
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
I don't think that I have used trial and error, in my head or
otherwise, in any sudoku I have ever solved.
Of course you have. This here can't be a 2 because if it were a 2, that
there
John Ladasky john_lada...@sbcglobal.net:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:39:40 AM UTC-7, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
I post below a sudoku solver. I eagerly await neater implementations (as
well as bug reports).
So, it's a brute-force, recursive solver? The code is nice and short.
But I bet it
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:39:40 AM UTC-7, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
I post below a sudoku solver. I eagerly await neater implementations (as
well as bug reports).
So, it's a brute-force, recursive solver? The code is nice and short. But I
bet it takes a long time to run.
I and a
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:44 PM, John Ladasky
john_lada...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:39:40 AM UTC-7, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
I post below a sudoku solver. I eagerly await neater implementations (as
well as bug reports).
So, it's a brute-force, recursive solver?
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
The test puzzle that you posted has 23 values already filled in. How
does it perform on harder puzzles with only 17 clues (the proven
minimum)? One would expect it to be around a million times slower.
Just try it. The example had a minimum of clues (drop one
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
John Ladasky john_lada...@sbcglobal.net:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:39:40 AM UTC-7, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
I post below a sudoku solver. I eagerly await neater implementations (as
well as bug reports).
So, it's a
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
The test puzzle that you posted has 23 values already filled in. How
does it perform on harder puzzles with only 17 clues (the proven
minimum)? One would expect it to be around a million
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:39 pm, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
I have yet to find practical use for fibonacci numbers.
Many people have failed to find practical uses for many things from
mathematics. Doesn't mean they don't exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number#Applications
--
Steven
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
The test puzzle that you posted has 23 values already filled in. How
does it perform on harder puzzles with only 17 clues (the proven
minimum)? One would expect it to be around a million
On 25/03/2015 22:50, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:39 pm, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
I have yet to find practical use for fibonacci numbers.
Many people have failed to find practical uses for many things from
mathematics. Doesn't mean they don't exist:
On Mar 26, 2015 5:39 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
Hard for a human doesn't necessarily mean hard for a programmatic
solver in this case. Try your solver on this one:
$ cat sudoku2.dat
. . . 7 . . . . .
1 . . . . . . . .
. . . 4 3 . 2 . .
. . . . . . . . 6
. . . 5 . 9 . . .
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Abhiram R abhi.darkn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2015 5:39 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
Hard for a human doesn't necessarily mean hard for a programmatic
solver in this case. Try your solver on this one:
$ cat sudoku2.dat
. . . 7 . . . . .
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Abhiram R abhi.darkn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2015 5:39 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
Hard for a human doesn't necessarily mean hard for a programmatic
solver in this
On Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:45:36 AM UTC+10:30, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/30/2013 06:06 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:41:08 AM UTC+10:30, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/29/2013 05:47 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
SNIP
Sometimes a bug in such a function will cause it
On Monday, April 1, 2013 8:33:47 AM UTC+10:30, Eric Parry wrote:
On Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:45:36 AM UTC+10:30, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/30/2013 06:06 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:41:08 AM UTC+10:30, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/29/2013 05:47 PM, Eric
On 03/31/2013 06:03 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
SNIP
I think in the original it was exit(a). That did not work either.
There you go again. Did not work tells us very little. With my
Python 2.7.2, exit(something) with something being a string prints the
string and then exits. Nowhere have
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Eric Parry joan4e...@gmail.com wrote:
[ chomp 128 lines of quoted text ]
I tried all those things. The program keeps running after the solution in
every case. Never mind. It won't do that in VBA when I finish it.
Eric.
You have just spammed us with, and I
On 31 March 2013 23:34, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
[...] With my Python
2.7.2, exit(something) with something being a string prints the string and
then exits. Nowhere have I seen that documented, and I thought it either
took an int or nothing.
It is documented, just not exactly where
Sorry.
Won't happen again.
signing off this topic.
Eric.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:41:08 AM UTC+10:30, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/29/2013 05:47 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
SNIP
That explains why the program keeps running after a solution is found.
A recursive function can be designed to find all solutions, in which
case it would
On 03/30/2013 06:06 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:41:08 AM UTC+10:30, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/29/2013 05:47 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
SNIP
Sometimes a bug in such a function will cause it to run indefinitely,
and/or to overflow the stack. I don't see such a bug in this
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Eric Parry joan4e...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for that explanation.
No, I do not understand recursion. It is missing from my Python manual. I
would be pleased to receive further explanation from anyone.
If you already know what recursion is, just remember
On Friday, March 29, 2013 9:15:36 AM UTC+10:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Eric Parry joan4e...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for that explanation.
No, I do not understand recursion. It is missing from my Python manual. I
would be pleased to receive further
On 03/29/2013 05:47 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
SNIP
That explains why the program keeps running after a solution is found.
A recursive function can be designed to find all solutions, in which
case it would (as you say) keep running.
The function you posted in the first place uses exit() to
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:06:02 PM UTC+10:30, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/27/2013 11:00 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:28:01 PM UTC+10:30, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
SNIP the double-spaced garbage that GoogleGroups put in - see
On 03/28/2013 06:11 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:06:02 PM UTC+10:30, Dave Angel wrote:
SNIP
Are you familiar with recursion? Notice the last line in the function
r() calls the function r() inside a for loop.
So when r() returns, you're back inside the next level
On Friday, March 29, 2013 9:58:27 AM UTC+10:30, Dave Angel wrote:
On 03/28/2013 06:11 PM, Eric Parry wrote:
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:06:02 PM UTC+10:30, Dave Angel wrote:
SNIP
Are you familiar with recursion? Notice the last line in the function
r() calls
Am 27.03.2013 06:44, schrieb Eric Parry:
I downloaded the following program from somewhere using a link from
Wikipedia and inserted the “most difficult Sudoku puzzle ever” string
into it and ran it. It worked fine and solved the puzzle in about 4
seconds. However I cannot understand how it
* Eric Parry joan4e...@gmail.com in comp.lang.python:
I downloaded the following program from somewhere using a link from
Wikipedia and inserted the “most difficult Sudoku puzzle ever” string
into it and ran it. It worked fine and solved the puzzle in about
4 seconds. However I cannot
On 03/27/2013 01:44 AM, Eric Parry wrote:
I downloaded the following program from somewhere
It'd be good to show where you found it, and credit the apparent author.
Bill Barksdale posted this in 2008 at:
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
