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
as C - for a random algorithm
like the Sudoku solver, not specifically tuned, C is 30x faster. It
still boils down to the classic rules: static unboxed types and static
or preallocated memory makes your code fast. In many cases, though,
programming in Python can free programmer time, which can lead
interpreter)
PyPy: 93 seconds
C unoptimised: 17 seconds (gcc -O0 32-bit)
C optimised:3.3 seconds (gcc -O3 32-bit)
https://attractivechaos.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/an-incomplete-review-of-sudoku-solver-implementations/
The fastest Sudoku solver can solve even
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
:
http://pastebin.com/5cXd2Pef )
I've managed to create a Python version of my 'brute force' sudoku solver:
http://pastebin.com/CKmHmBKm
It was hard going as I don't normally write Python. But it worked
practically first time, after building it bottom-up and then putting the
solvepuzzle
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
the Sudoku solver, not specifically tuned, C is 30x faster. It
still boils down to the classic rules: static unboxed types and static
or preallocated memory makes your code fast. In many cases, though,
programming in Python can free programmer time, which can lead in turn
to better algorithms
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
it doesn't matter that the OP's algorithm is not great, as it
makes an interesting new benchmark.)
https://attractivechaos.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/an-incomplete-review-of-sudoku-solver-implementations/
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our
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
seconds (gcc -O0 32-bit)
C optimised:3.3 seconds (gcc -O3 32-bit)
https://attractivechaos.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/an-incomplete-review-of-sudoku-solver-implementations/
The fastest Sudoku solver can solve even the hardest Sudoku in about 1
millisecond and solve most others in 0.1
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
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
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
of rules. It might not be beyond a more
comprehensive set of rules, but that doesn't matter; you've proven the
puzzle to be unsolvable *with your (program's) skill set*.
I did write a Sudoku-solver many years ago, in C++, and it solved the
typical Sudoku I fed it in about 2ms
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
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
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
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:
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 situations.
I post below a sudoku solver. I eagerly await neater implementations
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 27/01/2012 07:47, Blockheads Oi Oi wrote:
On 27/01/2012 06:57, Frank Millman wrote:
Blockheads Oi Oibreamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I have a working program based on [1] that sets up all different
constraints for each row, column and box and then sets exact sum
constraints for each cage.
I have a working program based on [1] that sets up all different
constraints for each row, column and box and then sets exact sum
constraints for each cage. It'll run in around 0.2 secs for a simple
problem, but a tough one takes 2 hours 45 minutes. I did some research
into improving the
Blockheads Oi Oi breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I have a working program based on [1] that sets up all different
constraints for each row, column and box and then sets exact sum
constraints for each cage. It'll run in around 0.2 secs for a simple
problem, but a tough one takes 2 hours 45
On 27/01/2012 06:57, Frank Millman wrote:
Blockheads Oi Oibreamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I have a working program based on [1] that sets up all different
constraints for each row, column and box and then sets exact sum
constraints for each cage. It'll run in around 0.2 secs for a simple
http://norvig.com/sudoku.html
(...)
Below is the winner of my hacking for an as fast as
possible 110% pure python (no imports at all!) comprehensive sudoku
solver under 50 LOCs, back in 2006. Performance is comparable to the
solver you advertize - numbers are slightly better
to have a look would
want to give ...
In my view, the canonical Python sudoku solver is located here:
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/PADS/Sudoku.py
This is from David Eppstein, a professor of Computer Science at the
University of California at Irvine.
More than just solving the puzzles, his
I'm not making any judgements here, though. If anyone takes the time
to actually review them, I'd be interested in hearing any educated
comparisons.
Shawn
So would I. Below is the winner of my hacking for an as fast as possible 110%
pure python (no imports at all!) comprehensive sudoku
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:02:01 -0800 (PST), Derek Marshall wrote:
This is just for fun, in case someone would be interested and because
I haven't had the pleasure of posting anything here in many years ...
http://derek.marshall.googlepages.com/pythonsudokusolver
Appreciate any feedback
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:09:42 +0100
Thomas Thiel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neither fast nor user friendly, but very concise:
This is a bit faster:
options = set([str(i) for i in range(1, 10)])
def allow(puzzle,i):
exclude = set(x if i//9 == j//9 or i%9 == j%9
or i//27 == j//27 and
This is just for fun, in case someone would be interested and because
I haven't had the pleasure of posting anything here in many years ...
http://derek.marshall.googlepages.com/pythonsudokusolver
Appreciate any feedback anyone who takes the time to have a look would
want to give ...
Yours
On Jan 23, 2008, at 10:02 PM, Derek Marshall wrote:
This is just for fun, in case someone would be interested and because
I haven't had the pleasure of posting anything here in many years ...
http://derek.marshall.googlepages.com/pythonsudokusolver
Appreciate any feedback anyone who
ago wrote:
[Something I mostly agree with]
According to Anton the number of possible solutions can be reduced
using 1) number swapping, 2) mirroring, 3) blocks/rows/columns
swapping. All those operations create equivalent matrices. For a 9X9
grid, this should give a reduction factor =
Anton,
Do you think it is possible to reduce the set of all possible solutions
to a small enough set? I personally doubt it, but IF that was the case
an efficient solver could be easily created.
In reducing the set of all solutions for instance you could always swap
the numbers (3rd axis) so
Your reduction-first approach makes short work of
them, though. On the other hand, my version probably didn't take as long
to write!
Well, I started from the reduction-only algorithm so by the time I
implemented the brute force solver I already had the code. Anyway the
full code is just above
ago wrote:
Do you think it is possible to reduce the set of all possible solutions
to a small enough set? I personally doubt it, but IF that was the case
an efficient solver could be easily created.
No I don't think so, but it's a great idea :-) . Iff we would have some
ultimate symmetry
Do you think it is possible to reduce the set of all possible solutions
to a small enough set? I personally doubt it, but IF that was the case
an efficient solver could be easily created.
To expand on the concept, assume for the argument sake that the
universe of possible solutions can be
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
