Welcome to the Monastery PerlMonks

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

by LanX (Bishop)
 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. ¹

qed! =)

Cheers Rolf

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

UPDATE:

¹) 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.

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

Indeed!

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

Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1011723]
help
Chatterbox?
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (4)
As of 2018-05-27 16:28 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
Voting Booth?
World peace can best be achieved by:

Results (195 votes). Check out past polls.

Notices?