On 15.12.2008, at 23:07 , Matthew Moss wrote:

>
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:44 PM, steven shingler wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Matthew Moss <matt / moss.name> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:19 AM, peter / rubyrailways.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
>>>> poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so  
>>>> hard, or no
>>>> one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or... ?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps a little harder than it may appear, or as you suggest,  
>>> people may
>>> be busy. In the worst case, a brute force solution should be easy  
>>> to do.
>>
>>
>> Seeing as how this quiz has been so quiet, here's a v quick (and  
>> very brute
>> force!) attempt: http://pastie.org/339925 - - please be kind! :)
>
>
> Minor point... I probably wasn't clear by "minimize group  
> duplication."
>
> In your code, you use dup_count in an attempt to avoid having a  
> particular recipient's gift contain duplication candles. Actually, I  
> like this requirement, although it wasn't what I meant. (Other subs:  
> please try and make each gift without candle duplication.)
>
> What I meant is that if I give Janet garden/lavender/orange, I  
> should not also give Nancy garden/lavender/orange. I want a distinct  
> combination for each recipient.
>
>


I am not about to partake but these requirements seem to conflict, no?

ppl = [:janet, :nancy, :betty]
candles = [:lavender => 3, :garden => 3, :orange => 3].

the following seems like the best answer to me but contains duplication,

lav, lav, ger
gar, or, or
gar, or, lav


the "uniquest" would be:

lav, lav, lav
gar, gar, gar
or. or. or

but it has more duplication whereas the least duplication has no  
uniqueness:
lav, gar, or
lav, gar, or
lav, gar, or

How is uniqueness supposed to be balanced against duplication?

einarmagnus