[r-t] Predicting search size (was FKM)

[Don Morrison]

Mark Davies wrote:
> No, no! Bad terminology on my part. For "current composition" read "current 
> sequence of calls". It doesn't have to come round (usually doesn't), instead 
> could be terminated by falseness etc.

Now I'm confused again. Surely you don't update this computation every time your 
search has to backtrack?

Assuming I understand correctly now (other than the granularity with which you 
update it) this is really quite interesting (well, to me). When I tried what I 
believe is the identical algorithm it really wasn't useful for me at all. While 
monotonic, it was horribly non-linear, and conveyed almost no useful 
information. I wonder if my aggressive pruning means there are more or deeper 
holes to fall into or whatever?





-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"We had spent a day rapt with wonder watching the mountain
gorillas, and being particularly moved at how human
they seemed.... To find afterward that a couple of hours
spent with actual humans was merely irritating was a bit
confusing."         -- Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_