So less talk and more action. I'm going to make a simulator for the car.
On Saturday, May 1, 2004, at 09:22 AM, James Spencer wrote:
On May 1, 2004, at 1:09 AM, Dar Scott wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2004, at 10:23 PM, David Kwinter wrote:
So who's our physics master? I have experience backtesting & optimizing systems once I've programmed them - but defining the environment following their specs looks extremely challenging.
I'm not sure how much this is a physics problem. The simulator is spec'd out exactly and that takes care in doing the low level coding. Some physics might be handy in getting close to a solution. However, this looks like a search problem to me. Well, at first glance.
It is a nice problem in that it can be broken up into pieces and the pieces might be done in alternate ways.
You are right: last year's problem was a pure computer programming problem. There was no physics involved at all as the contest organizers defined the physics of the problem completely and the math that was to be used to solve the physics. I think you can expect the same this year. The few past problems I've looked at did not require any knowledge of anything other than how to program. The consistent theme seems to be that algorithm is paramount with processing time being secondary but not insignificant. (When you have only 72 hours to write your program and submit your results, a brute force solution isn't likely to be successful as you won't find an optimum solution in that time, certainly without a supercomputer.)
Spence
James P. Spencer Rochester, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Badges?? We don't need no stinkin badges!"
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
