Hello Brent,
Sunday, July 2, 2006, 3:58:11 AM, you wrote:
> We recently began considering another benchmark for the shootout,
> namely a Magic Square via best-first search. This is fairly
i've slightly beautified your printMatrix code:
.
where
showMatrix n grid = join "\n
Am Sonntag, 2. Juli 2006 01:58 schrieb Brent Fulgham:
> We recently began considering another benchmark for the shootout,
> namely a Magic Square via best-first search. This is fairly
> inefficient, and we may need to shift to another approach due to the
> extremely large times required to find a
Perhaps you could post a new entry page on our shootout wiki?
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ShootoutEntry
This makes it easier for people to keep contributing.
Cheers,
Don
daniel.is.fischer:
> Am Sonntag, 2. Juli 2006 01:58 schrieb Brent Fulgham:
> > We recently began considering another
Hi,
I have now tuned Josh Goldfoot's code without changing the order in which the
magic squares are produced, for a 5x5 magic square, my machine took about 1
1/2 hours and used 2Mb memory (considering that the original code did not
finish within 4 1/2 hours here, that should push time on the ben
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel,
I have now tuned Josh Goldfoot's code without changing the order in
which the
magic squares are produced, for a 5x5 magic square, my machine took
about 1
1/2 hours and used 2Mb memory (considering that the original code
did not
finish w
Am Dienstag, 4. Juli 2006 18:20 schrieben Sie:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Daniel,
>
> > I have now tuned Josh Goldfoot's code without changing the order in
> > which the
> > magic squares are produced, for a 5x5 magic square, my machine took
> > about 1
> > 1/2 hours and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 4, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Daniel Fischer wrote:
I would propose modifying the other entries (since there are only a
handful) to match the output of your original solution.
What do you think?
Cool, though the problem of exploding runtime remains
Daniel Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cool, though the problem of exploding runtime remains, it's only
> pushed a little further. Now I get a 5x5 magig square in 1 s, a 6x6
> in 5.4 s, but 7x7 segfaulted after about 2 1/2 hours - out of memory,
I note that your solution uses Arrays. I ha
Am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2006 21:28 schrieben Sie:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> In the paragraph below it looks like you improved the performance of
> 5x5 from one and one half hours to one second. Is that a typo or
> should I be very, very impressed. :-)
>
> Cheers, David
Err, neither, really. Apparently, I hav
