[r-t] Big searches
mark at snowtiger.net
Mon Dec 17 08:59:48 UTC 2007
Ian Broster writes,
> Wouldn't a better metric be along the lines: "...an algorithm that can
> find [all of?] the compositions by searching the fewest nodes"
No no NO! You're missing the point. Of course the efficiency of algorithm is
crucial, and we've debated the possibilities there before. But I don't care
about that today - all I'm after is BIG NUMBERS. For instance, what sort of
search size was carried out in the BO Stedman searches? Has anyone ever gone
beyond 100 trillion nodes? I reckon that is a Big Search.
> Golly, I have never realy considered the length of mine, purely whether it
> has come up with the results.
If you've got it you might as well flaunt it Clarrie! Actually I think you
might have been guilty of that in the past yourself... :-)
More information about the ringing-theory