> You mean "i.e. polynomial,"
yes, kind of "non-exponential" =)
Was a short night! :)
Cheers Rolf
( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)
update
> next time someone tells you to give up on your problem because it's NP-complete, ignore them.
Unfortunately well described problems are rare here. | [reply] |
Unfortunately well described problems are rare here.
As are honestly thoughtful and helpful responses, and genuine discussion. As someone who has been here awhile (perhaps far too long), I know how to separate the wheat-y help from the karma-whoring chaff (I've contributed to both). New users, however, may not know how to filter out the mindless nostrums.
| [reply] |
> New users, however, may not know how to filter out the mindless nostrums.
Or may be too lazy to express themselves properly, and never improve cause karma whores spoil them with answers? :)
Anyway I learned new things again, I wasn't aware that the "NP-heuristics" are able to guaranty such good results like Christofides does.
Thats impressive, especially cause NP-problems are transformable into each other.
(Though it might not help much, if one needs to know for 100% if two graphs are isomorphic or not.)
Cheers Rolf
( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)
| [reply] |
