Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem

Booted Cat wrote:
Because in order to successfully swap i and j, the pairwise swap must
lead to a shorter path; and this may not be satisfied.

Shorter path? You didn't give them lengths.

It gets worse. You stated the key step of the algorithm:

if a swap of i and j in path P can lead to a shorter path

What does that mean? "Can lead to a shorter path" does not
necessarily mean that the immediately resulting path is shorter.

Plus, as A.L. pointed out, "Hamiltonian path" means, as near as
anyone can tell, the same problem as "Hamiltonian Circuit".
Shorter? What does that even have to do with the problem?


--
--Bryan
.