On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Michal D. <michal.dobrog...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry I missed the or. Unfortunately not, I mean you can have a constraint > like that if you want but you don't have to have to in general. I think > we're dwelling on an implementation detail. They (wikipedia) must just > have the < constraint propagating both ways.
Ok... so this implies some kind of ordering constraint on the use of non-commutative relationships. I am going to guess that this constraint has something to do with the ordering of your D -- for example that lower-valued row indexes into D must always appear on the left side of the comparative relationship and higher-valued row indexes into D must always appear on the right side of the comparative relationship? Does this sound right? > My brain is fried but I did hack together an ugly search procedure. You > can try it out on a sudoku puzzle if you want. For some reason I couldn't > generate it using the code you gave me. http://pastebin.com/2zPB4DBA That will be helpful. (But it will not help me understand your treatment of non-commutative compare relationships -- sudoku uses a commutative comparison.) -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
