Re: puzzle 15
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg24840] Re: puzzle 15
- From: "Ira D. Baxter" <idbaxter at semdesigns.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 03:04:09 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Being interpretive, Mathematica isn't particularly fast.
That explains about a factor of 100x.
For exhaustive search, you want a good compiler.
For this kind of search, you'd ideally go parellel.
That would buy a N-way speedup for N CPUs.
We've done this with our own parallel programming language,
We have a 15-puzzle solver coded in Parlanse that finds typically 50-move
optimial solutions on an 8-way
SMP 200Mhz Pentium Pro in roughly 23 seconds.
This language is used to implement a parallel rewriting system, too.
Ira Baxter, Ph.D., CTO idbaxter at semdesigns.com 512-250-1018x140
Semantic Designs, Inc., www.semdesigns.com FAX 512-250-1191
12636 Research Blvd #C214, Austin, Texas 78759
Borut L. <JustMyName at email.si> wrote in message
news:8n7qol$1l6 at smc.vnet.net...
> I've written algorithm in Mathematica for a summer homework on Loyd's
> 15. I've used back-tracing, i.e. exhaustive search method for it, because
> nothing else came on my mind. It turned out, it's extremlly slow
> for boards larger than 3x3). I post here to ask anybody for a good tip on
> the subject matter.
> Thanks, Borut L.
Prev by Date:
Confusing Behavior of LogPlot vs. Plot
Next by Date:
Re: Incorrect Fourier Transorms?
Previous by thread:
Next by thread:
REQUEST: Are there any notebooks or packages about Bayesian data analysis?