On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:48:24 +0900
Dennis Ranke <dennis.ranke / epost.de> wrote:

> Here is a small update to my solution. A simple optimization speeds up 
> the solver by a factor of nearly two. Now I'm down to 5 seconds for the 
> worst case on this machine :)
> 
> [snip]

Interesting read. I never thought about building the terms bottom up instead of top down ;).  I was in such a recursive mindset. I hope your ideas don't force me to rethink my solutions and spend even more time that I don't have ;).

One thing I noticed is, that you used:

>      best_difference = (@target * 1000).abs

this shurely works but is cheating. Why not use:

>      best_difference = 1.0/0.0

That would really be bigger than any other difference you'd encounter.

It is not possible to find all solutions, using your programm, did I understand this right?

Best Regards,

Brian


-- 
Brian Schröäer
http://www.brian-schroeder.de/