Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: "Booted Cat" <yaoziyuan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Dec 2006 13:38:14 -0800
Hehe
On Dec 7, 10:16 pm, A.L. <alewa...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:04:13 GMT, Patricia Shanahan <p...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
...
What does that mean? "Can lead to a shorter path" does not...
necessarily mean that the immediately resulting path is shorter.
This is the essential problem, so far, with hill-climbing approaches to
NP-complete problems. They tend to have local optima, where any single
small change makes things worse, but improvement would be possible with
a large change.
PatriciaDon't pay attention, someone Booted Cat generates nonsense not onlyin this thread but also in others
A.L.
.
- References:
- A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: Booted Cat
- Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: Booted Cat
- Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: dfarr@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: Booted Cat
- Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: Bryan Olson
- Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: Patricia Shanahan
- Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: A . L .
- A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- Prev by Date: Quantum Computation By Adiabatic Evolution
- Next by Date: Regular Tree Grammar vs. Context-Free Grammar
- Previous by thread: Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- Next by thread: Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- Index(es):