Re^4: Travelling problem (Anyone better 86850?)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Travelling problem (Anyone better 86850?) by LanX (Saint) on Dec 23, 2013 at 17:09 UTC
Well, which is far better than 95166. =) Anyway both results are already within 20% from the optimum. May I ask, if you cache intermediate results? If you go from 1 to 24 and reach node X again via the same nodes (just other order) then the options for the rest of the way are identical. In my experience such memoizing helps to bound very efficiently. update This caching is maybe better applied in a "breadth first search" to reduce pathes. Cheers Rolf ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)	[reply]
Re^6: Travelling problem (Anyone better 86850?) by hdb (Monsignor) on Dec 23, 2013 at 18:22 UTC
No caching, just brute force. I have now cleaned my code, you have to give the bound on the command line: Read more... (8 kB)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^7: Travelling problem (Anyone better 86850?) by LanX (Saint) on Dec 23, 2013 at 18:30 UTC
Thanks. I'll try a breadth first version with caching after X-mas, the solution BUK showed seems to always chose one of the 3 shortest edges (visual check), but I hope it wont take 27h. =) Cheers Rolf ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)	[reply]