[r-t] Predicting search size (was FKM)
dfm at ringing.org
Wed Jan 9 19:39:11 UTC 2008
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_
More information about the ringing-theory