Comments by NeatNet - CodeProject

NeatNet 24-Feb-21 10:10am View

Sorry, I forgot to post my code before. Now the question has it

NeatNet 24-Feb-21 10:08am View

I just updated my question and added my code

NeatNet 24-Feb-21 10:02am View

Deleted

volume(9,5).

program(A,B,W):-
volume(VA,VB),
A>=0,
A=<va,
b="">=0,
B=<vb,
change(a,b,[[a,b]],w),
="" write1(w).
=""
write1([]).
write1([x|l]):-
="" writeln(x),
="" write1(l).

element(a,b,w,w1):-
="" not(member([a,b],w)),
="" add1([a,b],w,w2),
="" change(a,b,w2,w1).
=""
change(3,_,w,w).
change(_,3,w,w).

change(a,b,w,w1):-
="" volume(va,_),
="" b="">0,
C is VA-A,
C>0,
min(B,C,Min),
A1 is A+Min,
B1 is B-Min,
element(A1,B1,W,W1).

change(A,B,W,W1):-
volume(_,VB),
A>0,
C is VB-B,
C>0,
min(A,C,Min),
B1 is B+Min,
A1 is A-Min,
element(A1,B1,W,W1).

change(A,B,W,W1):-
volume(VA,_),
A=VA,
B>0,
element(0,B,W,W1).

change(A,B,W,W1):-
volume(_,VB),
A>0,
B=VB,
element(A,0,W,W1).

change(A,B,W,W1):-
volume(VA,_),
A=0,
element(VA,B,W,W1).

change(A,B,W,W1):-
volume(_,VB),
B=0,
element(A,VB,W,W1).

min(A,B,A):- A=<b.
min(a,b,b):-a>B.

add(X,L,[X|L]).

add1(X,[],[X]).
add1(X,[X1|L],[X1|L1]):-
add1(X,L,L1).

NeatNet 12-Jan-21 17:10pm View

Thanks. I will try your code

NeatNet 10-Jan-21 17:38pm View

I did exactly that in my code and it didn't help. Local search cannot give out another correct state without knowing previous states. I think that this task has no solution, as any incorrect relocation of a ball will lead to deadend

NeatNet 9-Jan-21 20:31pm View

Thanks a lot. But how about when balls have IDs and the initial state is: [B1, B2, B3, B4, 0, W1, W2, W3] and the final state is: [W1, W2, W3, 0, B1, B2, B3, B4]? What is the optimizing function then would be?

NeatNet 7-Jan-21 17:16pm View

Ok, so when I generate only a single ulong number and divide it by ulong.MaxValue, will it be a truly secure generator with equal probability of all cases??

NeatNet 22-Mar-19 17:51pm View

Thanks! About these lines - If you use your abstract class of Function to serve as base for both NonDeterministic and Deterministic functions you are exposing implementation that only concerns one side of those functions (Ex: deterministic classes would be able to see/implement nondeterministic methods (potentially) if you use the abstract Function class for both types of deterministic functions).
But I put deterministic logic strictly to the [DeterministicFunction] class and the non-deterministic logic to [NonDeterministicFunction] - they will not intersect, I mean their interactions will not meet. As for interface [IFunction] - yes, I thought about it - that looks neat in terms of clean interface

NeatNet 5-Nov-17 22:51pm View

It's just to fit the constructor of the Task class cause it accepts only Action and Action<t> delegates

NeatNet 10-Nov-16 7:36am View

Thanks. But is it correct to convert from interface to class? Or in this case it has no issues? I see now

Comments by NeatNet (Top 10 by date)