Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer

Re^5: Evolving a faster filter? (optimal!)

by LanX (Chancellor)
on Jan 04, 2013 at 21:42 UTC ( #1011723=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^4: Evolving a faster filter? (optimal?)
in thread Evolving a faster filter?

Well my argument is sufficient to show that a solution where two adjacent filters don't follow this order can't be optimal, because otherwise swapping those adjacent filters f[i] and f[i+1] would improve the result.

So any optimal solution must follow this strict order criteria.

qed! =)

Cheers Rolf

PS: I'm glad I didn't start implementing the B&B algorithm :-)


) and it's easy to see that all ordered solutions (plural b/c adjacent filters can have the same weight) imply the same total cost.

Comment on Re^5: Evolving a faster filter? (optimal!)
Select or Download Code
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Evolving a faster filter? (optimal!)
by tye (Sage) on Jan 04, 2013 at 22:35 UTC


    And the number of choices that leaves you with is rather tiny.

    Worse (or better), from throwing cases at the code, I bet it is possible to prove that all such orderings are optimal so that the one that sort gives you is optimal.

    I think it might not be hard to prove and $a <= $b <= $c implies $a <= $c (assuming non-negative cost and selectivity between 0 and 1). And that should be enough.

    - tye        

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1011723]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (4)
As of 2015-11-26 01:35 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    What would be the most significant thing to happen if a rope (or wire) tied the Earth and the Moon together?

    Results (695 votes), past polls