Search Results

Search found 1486 results on 60 pages for 'hexagon theory'.

Page 7/60 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • An approximate algorithm for finding Steiner Forest.

    - by Tadeusz A. Kadlubowski
    Hello. Consider a weighted graph G=(V,E,w). We are given a family of subsets of vertices V_i. Those sets of vertices are not necessarily disjoint. A Steiner Forest is a forest that for each subset of vertices V_i connects all of the vertices in this subset with a tree. Example: only one subset V_1 = V. In this case a Steiner forest is a spanning tree of the whole graph. Enough theory. Finding such a forest with minimal weight is difficult (NP-complete). Do you know any quicker approximate algorithm to find such a forest with non-optimal weight?

    Read the article

  • Why is this an invalid Turing machine?

    - by Danny King
    Whilst doing exam revision I am having trouble answering the following question from the book, "An Introduction to the Theory of Computation" by Sipser. Unfortunately there's no solution to this question in the book. Explain why the following is not a legitimate Turing machine. M = { The input is a polynomial p over variables x1, ..., xn Try all possible settings of x1, ..., xn to integer values Evaluate p on all of these settings If any of these settings evaluates to 0, accept; otherwise reject. } This is driving me crazy! I suspect it is because the set of integers is infinite? Does this somehow exceed the alphabet's allowable size? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Solving the water jug problem

    - by Amit
    While reading through some lecture notes on preliminary number theory, I came across the solution to water jug problem (with two jugs) which is summed as thus: Using the property of the G.C.D of two numbers that GCD(a,b) is the smallest possible linear combination of a and b, and hence a certain quantity Q is only measurable by the 2 jugs, iff Q is a n*GCD(a,b), since Q=sA + tB, where: n = a positive integer A = capacity of jug A B= capacity of jug B And, then the method to the solution is discussed Another model of the solution is to model the various states as a state-space search problem as often resorted to in Artificial Intelligence. My question is: What other known methods exist which models the solution, and how? Google didn't throw up much.

    Read the article

  • Is it a solvable problem to generate a regular expression that matches some input set?

    - by Roman
    I provide some input set which contains known separated number of text blocks. I want to make a program that automatically generate 1 or more regular expressions each of which matches every text block in the input set. I see some relatively easy ways to implement a brute-force search. But I'm not an expert in compilers theory. That's why I'm curious: 1) is this problem solvable? or there are some principle impossibility to make such algorithm? 2) is it possible to achieve polynomial complexity for this algorithm and avoid brute forcing?

    Read the article

  • Normalized Device Coordinates to window coordinates

    - by okoman
    I just read some stuff about the theory behind 3d graphics. As I understand it, normalized device coordinates (NDC) are coordinates that describe a point in the interval from -1 to 1 on both the horizontal and vertical axis. On the other hand window coordinates describe a point somewhere between (0,0) and (width,height) of the window. So my formula to convert a point from the NDC coordinate system to the window system would be xwin = width + xndc * 0.5 * width ywin = height + ynfv * 0.5 * height The problem now is that in the OpenGL documentation for glViewport there is an other formula: xwin = ( xndc + 1 ) * width * 0.5 + x ywin = ( yndc + 1 ) * height * 0.5 + y Now I'm wondering what I am getting wrong. Especially I'm wondering what the additional "x" and "y" mean. Hope the question isn't too "not programming related", but I thought somehow it is related to graphics programming.

    Read the article

  • Is there a perfect algorithm for chess?

    - by Overflown
    Dear Stack Overflow community, I was recently in a discussion with a non-coder person on the possibilities of chess computers. I'm not well versed in theory, but think I know enough. I argued that there could not exist a deterministic Turing machine that always won or stalemated at chess. I think that, even if you search the entire space of all combinations of player1/2 moves, the single move that the computer decides upon at each step is based on a heuristic. Being based on a heuristic, it does not necessarily beat ALL of the moves that the opponent could do. My friend thought, to the contrary, that a computer would always win or tie if it never made a "mistake" move (however do you define that?). However, being a programmer who has taken CS, I know that even your good choices - given a wise opponent - can force you to make "mistake" moves in the end. Even if you know everything, your next move is greedy in matching a heuristic. Most chess computers try to match a possible end game to the game in progress, which is essentially a dynamic programming traceback. Again, the endgame in question is avoidable though. -- thanks, Allan Edit: Hmm... looks like I ruffled some feathers here. That's good. Thinking about it again, it seems like there is no theoretical problem with solving a finite game like chess. I would argue that chess is a bit more complicated than checkers in that a win is not necessarily by numerical exhaustion of pieces, but by a mate. My original assertion is probably wrong, but then again I think I've pointed out something that is not yet satisfactorily proven (formally). I guess my thought experiment was that whenever a branch in the tree is taken, then the algorithm (or memorized paths) must find a path to a mate (without getting mated) for any possible branch on the opponent moves. After the discussion, I will buy that given more memory than we can possibly dream of, all these paths could be found.

    Read the article

  • Is there a term for this concept, and does it exist in a static-typed language?

    - by Strilanc
    Recently I started noticing a repetition in some of my code. Of course, once you notice a repetition, it becomes grating. Which is why I'm asking this question. The idea is this: sometimes you write different versions of the same class: a raw version, a locked version, a read-only facade version, etc. These are common things to do to a class, but the translations are highly mechanical. Surround all the methods with lock acquires/releases, etc. In a dynamic language, you could write a function which did this to an instance of a class (eg. iterate over all the functions, replacing them with a version which acquires/releases a lock.). I think a good term for what I mean is 'reflected class'. You create a transformation which takes a class, and returns a modified-in-a-desired-way class. Synchronization is the easiest case, but there are others: make a class immutable [wrap methods so they clone, mutate the clone, and include it in the result], make a class readonly [assuming you can identify mutating methods], make a class appear to work with type A instead of type B, etc. The important part is that, in theory, these transformations make sense at compile-time. Even though an ActorModel<T> has methods which change depending on T, they depend on T in a specific way knowable at compile-time (ActorModel<T> methods would return a future of the original result type). I'm just wondering if this has been implemented in a language, and what it's called.

    Read the article

  • When to use CTEs to encapsulate sub-results, and when to let the RDBMS worry about massive joins.

    - by IanC
    This is a SQL theory question. I can provide an example, but I don't think it's needed to make my point. Anyone experienced with SQL will immediately know what I'm talking about. Usually we use joins to minimize the number of records due to matching the left and right rows. However, under certain conditions, joining tables cause a multiplication of results where the result is all permutations of the left and right records. I have a database which has 3 or 4 such joins. This turns what would be a few records into a multitude. My concern is that the tables will be large in production, so the number of these joined rows will be immense. Further, heavy math is performed on each row, and the idea of performing math on duplicate rows is enough to make anyone shudder. I have two questions. The first is, is this something I should care about, or will SQL Server intelligently realize these rows are all duplicates and optimize all processing accordingly? The second is, is there any advantage to grouping each part of the query so as to get only the distinct values going into the next part of the query, using something like: WITH t1 AS ( SELECT DISTINCT... [or GROUP BY] ), t2 AS ( SELECT DISTINCT... ), t3 AS ( SELECT DISTINCT... ) SELECT... I have often seen the use of DISTINCT applied to subqueries. There is obviously a reason for doing this. However, I'm talking about something a little different and perhaps more subtle and tricky.

    Read the article

  • Counting the amount of letters in all permutations of words in R

    - by Rhodo
    I have some words: shapes<- c("Square", "Triangle","Octagon","Hexagon") I want to arrange them in pairs: shapescount<-combn(shapes, 2) shapescount [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [1,] "Square" "Square" "Square" "Triangle" "Triangle" "Octagon" [2,] "Triangle" "Octagon" "Hexagon" "Octagon" "Hexagon" "Hexagon" I want to count each of the groupings of the letters in the pairs, for instance first pair is "6" for "Square" and "8" for "Triangle" giving me "14" for the first pair, and so on.

    Read the article

  • 3D Ball Physics Theory: collision response on ground and against walls?

    - by David
    I'm really struggling to get a strong grasp on how I should be handling collision response in a game engine I'm building around a 3D ball physics concept. Think Monkey Ball as an example of the type of gameplay. I am currently using sphere-to-sphere broad phase, then AABB to OBB testing (the final test I am using right now is one that checks if one of the 8 OBB points crosses the planes of the object it is testing against). This seems to work pretty well, and I am getting back: Plane that object is colliding against (with a point on the plane, the plane's normal, and the exact point of intersection. I've tried what feels like dozens of different high-level strategies for handling these collisions, without any real success. I think my biggest problem is understanding how to handle collisions against walls in the x-y axes (left/right, front/back), which I want to have elasticity, and the ground (z-axis) where I want an elastic reaction if the ball drops down, but then for it to eventually normalize and be kept "on the ground" (not go into the ground, but also not continue bouncing). Without kluging something together, I'm positive there is a good way to handle this, my theories just aren't getting me all the way there. For physics modeling and movement, I am trying to use a Euler based setup with each object maintaining a position (and destination position prior to collision detection), a velocity (which is added onto the position to determine the destination position), and an acceleration (which I use to store any player input being put on the ball, as well as gravity in the z coord). Starting from when I detect a collision, what is a good way to approach the response to get the expected behavior in all cases? Thanks in advance to anyone taking the time to assist... I am grateful for any pointers, and happy to post any additional info or code if it is useful. UPDATE Based on Steve H's and eBusiness' responses below, I have adapted my collision response to what makes a lot more sense now. It was close to right before, but I didn't have all the right pieces together at the right time! I have one problem left to solve, and that is what is causing the floor collision to hit every frame. Here's the collision response code I have now for the ball, then I'll describe the last bit I'm still struggling to understand. // if we are moving in the direction of the plane (against the normal)... if (m_velocity.dot(intersection.plane.normal) <= 0.0f) { float dampeningForce = 1.8f; // eventually create this value based on mass and acceleration // Calculate the projection velocity PVRTVec3 actingVelocity = m_velocity.project(intersection.plane.normal); m_velocity -= actingVelocity * dampeningForce; } // Clamp z-velocity to zero if we are within a certain threshold // -- NOTE: this was an experimental idea I had to solve the "jitter" bug I'll describe below float diff = 0.2f - abs(m_velocity.z); if (diff > 0.0f && diff <= 0.2f) { m_velocity.z = 0.0f; } // Take this object to its new destination position based on... // -- our pre-collision position + vector to the collision point + our new velocity after collision * time // -- remaining after the collision to finish the movement m_destPosition = m_position + intersection.diff + (m_velocity * intersection.tRemaining * GAMESTATE->dt); The above snippet is run after a collision is detected on the ball (collider) with a collidee (floor in this case). With a dampening force of 1.8f, the ball's reflected "upward" velocity will eventually be overcome by gravity, so the ball will essentially be stuck on the floor. THIS is the problem I have now... the collision code is running every frame (since the ball's z-velocity is constantly pushing it a collision with the floor below it). The ball is not technically stuck, I can move it around still, but the movement is really goofy because the velocity and position keep getting affected adversely by the above snippet. I was experimenting with an idea to clamp the z-velocity to zero if it was "close to zero", but this didn't do what I think... probably because the very next frame the ball gets a new gravity acceleration applied to its velocity regardless (which I think is good, right?). Collisions with walls are as they used to be and work very well. It's just this last bit of "stickiness" to deal with. The camera is constantly jittering up and down by extremely small fractions too when the ball is "at rest". I'll keep playing with it... I like puzzles like this, especially when I think I'm close. Any final ideas on what I could be doing wrong here? UPDATE 2 Good news - I discovered I should be subtracting the intersection.diff from the m_position (position prior to collision). The intersection.diff is my calculation of the difference in the vector of position to destPosition from the intersection point to the position. In this case, adding it was causing my ball to always go "up" just a little bit, causing the jitter. By subtracting it, and moving that clamper for the velocity.z when close to zero to being above the dot product (and changing the test from <= 0 to < 0), I now have the following: // Clamp z-velocity to zero if we are within a certain threshold float diff = 0.2f - abs(m_velocity.z); if (diff > 0.0f && diff <= 0.2f) { m_velocity.z = 0.0f; } // if we are moving in the direction of the plane (against the normal)... float dotprod = m_velocity.dot(intersection.plane.normal); if (dotprod < 0.0f) { float dampeningForce = 1.8f; // eventually create this value based on mass and acceleration? // Calculate the projection velocity PVRTVec3 actingVelocity = m_velocity.project(intersection.plane.normal); m_velocity -= actingVelocity * dampeningForce; } // Take this object to its new destination position based on... // -- our pre-collision position + vector to the collision point + our new velocity after collision * time // -- remaining after the collision to finish the movement m_destPosition = m_position - intersection.diff + (m_velocity * intersection.tRemaining * GAMESTATE->dt); UpdateWorldMatrix(m_destWorldMatrix, m_destOBB, m_destPosition, false); This is MUCH better. No jitter, and the ball now "rests" at the floor, while still bouncing off the floor and walls. The ONLY thing left is that the ball is now virtually "stuck". He can move but at a much slower rate, likely because the else of my dot product test is only letting the ball move at a rate multiplied against the tRemaining... I think this is a better solution than I had previously, but still somehow not the right idea. BTW, I'm trying to journal my progress through this problem for anyone else with a similar situation - hopefully it will serve as some help, as many similar posts have for me over the years.

    Read the article

  • Is there such thing as a "theory of system integration"?

    - by Jeff
    There is a plethora of different programs, servers, and in general technologies in use in organizations today. We, programmers, have lots of different tools at our disposal to help solve various different data, and communication challenges in an organization. Does anyone know if anyone has done an serious thinking about how systems are integrated? Let me give an example: Hypothetically, let's say I own a company that makes specialized suits a'la Iron Man. In the area of production, I have CAD tools, machining tools, payroll, project management, and asset management tools to name a few. I also have nice design space, where designers show off their designs on big displays, some touch, some traditional. Oh, and I also have one of these new fangled LEED Platinum buildings and it has number of different computer controlled systems, like smart window shutters that close when people are in the room, a HVAC system that adjusts depending on the number of people in the building, etc. What I want to know is if anyone has done any scientific work on trying to figure out how to hook all these pieces together, so that say my access control system is hooked to my payroll system, and my phone system allowing my never to swipe a time card, and to have my phone follow me throughout the building. This problem is also more than a technology challenge. Every technology implementation enables certain human behaviours, so the human must also be considered as a part of the system. Has anyone done any work in how effectively weave these components together? FYI: I am not trying to build a system. I want to know if anyone has thoroughly studied the process of doing a large integration project, how they develop their requirements, how they studied the human behaviors, etc.

    Read the article

  • Removing Left Recursion in ANTLR

    - by prosseek
    As is explained in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2652060/removing-left-recursion , there are two ways to remove the left recursion. Modify the original grammar to remove the left recursion using some procedure Write the grammar originally not to have the left recursion What people normally use for removing (not having) the left recursion with ANTLR? I've used flex/bison for parser, but I need to use ANTLR. The only thing I'm concerned about using ANTLR (or LL parser in genearal) is left recursion removal. In practical sense, how serious of removing left recursion in ANTLR? Is this a showstopper in using ANTLR? Or, nobody cares about it in ANTLR community? I like the idea of AST generation of ANTLR. In terms of getting AST quick and easy way, which method (out of the 2 removing left recursion methods) is preferable?

    Read the article

  • Boosting my GA with Neural Networks and/or Reinforcement Learning

    - by AlexT
    As I have mentioned in previous questions I am writing a maze solving application to help me learn about more theoretical CS subjects, after some trouble I've got a Genetic Algorithm working that can evolve a set of rules (handled by boolean values) in order to find a good solution through a maze. That being said, the GA alone is okay, but I'd like to beef it up with a Neural Network, even though I have no real working knowledge of Neural Networks (no formal theoretical CS education). After doing a bit of reading on the subject I found that a Neural Network could be used to train a genome in order to improve results. Let's say I have a genome (group of genes), such as 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0... How could I use a Neural Network (I'm assuming MLP?) to train and improve my genome? In addition to this as I know nothing about Neural Networks I've been looking into implementing some form of Reinforcement Learning, using my maze matrix (2 dimensional array), although I'm a bit stuck on what the following algorithm wants from me: (from http://people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/ReinforcementLearning/Q-Learning-Algorithm.htm) 1. Set parameter , and environment reward matrix R 2. Initialize matrix Q as zero matrix 3. For each episode: * Select random initial state * Do while not reach goal state o Select one among all possible actions for the current state o Using this possible action, consider to go to the next state o Get maximum Q value of this next state based on all possible actions o Compute o Set the next state as the current state End Do End For The big problem for me is implementing a reward matrix R and what a Q matrix exactly is, and getting the Q value. I use a multi-dimensional array for my maze and enum states for every move. How would this be used in a Q-Learning algorithm? If someone could help out by explaining what I would need to do to implement the following, preferably in Java although C# would be nice too, possibly with some source code examples it'd be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Determining the maximum stack depth

    - by Joa Ebert
    Imagine I have a stack-based toy language that comes with the operations Push, Pop, Jump and If. I have a program and its input is the toy language. For instance I get the sequence Push 1 Push 1 Pop Pop In that case the maximum stack would be 2. A more complicated example would use branches. Push 1 Push true If .success Pop Jump .continue .success: Push 1 Push 1 Pop Pop Pop .continue: In this case the maximum stack would be 3. However it is not possible to get the maximum stack by walking top to bottom as shown in this case since it would result in a stack-underflow error actually. CFGs to the rescue you can build a graph and walk every possible path of the basic blocks you have. However since the number of paths can grow quickly for n vertices you get (n-1)! possible paths. My current approach is to simplify the graph as much as possible and to have less possible paths. This works but I would consider it ugly. Is there a better (read: faster) way to attack this problem? I am fine if the algorithm produces a stack depth that is not optimal. If the correct stack size is m then my only constraint is that the result n is n = m. Is there maybe a greedy algorithm available that would produce a good result here?

    Read the article

  • Advantages of compilers for functional languages over compilers for imperative languages

    - by Onorio Catenacci
    As a follow up to this question What are the advantages of built-in immutability of F# over C#?--am I correct in assuming that the F# compiler can make certain optimizations knowing that it's dealing with largely immutable code? I mean even if a developer writes "Functional C#" the compiler wouldn't know all of the immutability that the developer had tried to code in so that it couldn't make the same optimizations, right? In general would the compiler of a functional language be able to make optimizations that would not be possible with an imperative language--even one written with as much immutability as possible?

    Read the article

  • What are modern and old compilers written in?

    - by ulum
    As a compiler, other than an interpreter, only needs to translate the input and not run it the performance of itself should be not that problematic as with an interpreter. Therefore, you wouldn't write an interpreter in, let's say Ruby or PHP because it would be far too slow. However, what about compilers? If you would write a compiler in a scripting language maybe even featuring rapid development you could possibly cut the source code and initial development time by halv, at least I think so. To be sure: With scripting language I mean interpreted languages having typical features that make programming faster, easier and more enjoyable for the programmer, usually at least. Examples: PHP, Ruby, Python, maybe JavaScript though that may be an odd choice for a compiler What are compilers normally written in? As I suppose you will respond with something low-level like C, C++ or even Assembler, why? Are there compilers written in scripting languages? What are the (dis)advantages of using low or high level programming languages for compiler writing?

    Read the article

  • Translate a<b to IR Trees

    - by drozzy
    I have to translate the mini-java (java like language) statements into intermediate-representation trees. But for this question I have no idea what it is asking... a>b moves a 1 or 0 into some newly defined temporary, and whose right-hand side is a temporary Does the wording make sense to anyone? (I am using the Java compilers book, and it is question 7.2d) in ch7.)

    Read the article

  • Shift-reduce: when to stop reducing?

    - by Joey Adams
    I'm trying to learn about shift-reduce parsing. Suppose we have the following grammar, using recursive rules that enforce order of operations, inspired by the ANSI C Yacc grammar: S: A; P : NUMBER | '(' S ')' ; M : P | M '*' P | M '/' P ; A : M | A '+' M | A '-' M ; And we want to parse 1+2 using shift-reduce parsing. First, the 1 is shifted as a NUMBER. My question is, is it then reduced to P, then M, then A, then finally S? How does it know where to stop? Suppose it does reduce all the way to S, then shifts '+'. We'd now have a stack containing: S '+' If we shift '2', the reductions might be: S '+' NUMBER S '+' P S '+' M S '+' A S '+' S Now, on either side of the last line, S could be P, M, A, or NUMBER, and it would still be valid in the sense that any combination would be a correct representation of the text. How does the parser "know" to make it A '+' M So that it can reduce the whole expression to A, then S? In other words, how does it know to stop reducing before shifting the next token? Is this a key difficulty in LR parser generation?

    Read the article

  • Finding perfect numbers in C# (optimization)

    - by paradox
    I coded up a program in C# to find perfect numbers within a certain range as part of a programming challenge . However, I realized it is very slow when calculating perfect numbers upwards of 10000. Are there any methods of optimization that exist for finding perfect numbers? My code is as follows: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; namespace ConsoleTest { class Program { public static List<int> FindDivisors(int inputNo) { List<int> Divisors = new List<int>(); for (int i = 1; i<inputNo; i++) { if (inputNo%i==0) Divisors.Add(i); } return Divisors; } public static void Main(string[] args) { const int limit = 100000; List<int> PerfectNumbers = new List<int>(); List<int> Divisors=new List<int>(); for (int i=1; i<limit; i++) { Divisors = FindDivisors(i); if (i==Divisors.Sum()) PerfectNumbers.Add(i); } Console.Write("Output ="); for (int i=0; i<PerfectNumbers.Count; i++) { Console.Write(" {0} ",PerfectNumbers[i]); } Console.Write("\n\n\nPress any key to continue . . . "); Console.ReadKey(true); } } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >