4 ms·
how does it stand? you have given no argument this will make a substantial reduction when the grid size is much larger than the number of colors
by xenophanes 17y ago
how does it stand? you have given no argument this will make a substantial reduction when the grid size is much larger than the number of colors
- Retric 17y agoOk, if you consider in on the logarithmic scale then it's almost meaningless, but the idea was: A) you don't need to innumerate every complete grid before eliminating them. B) How you count is important, if you just looked at the top row the boxing effect does not help and you have almost 2 * 3 * 4^14 options. PS: You can also cull some rotational summitry's from those 14 options before you start, but again that's only important if you are trying to actually calculate it.
- xenophanes 17y ago> you don't need to innumerate every complete grid before eliminating them. Of course. For large grids, I wonder if you can eliminate everything that doesn't have nearly equal amounts of every color.
- Retric 17y agoYes, though I would try an construct a 9x9 grid, and then try tacking on 3 valid 8x8 grids, then add the filler. My guess is larger grids are more constrained than working with smaller independent grids. Also you could store the extra grids as part of a larger data structure and work your way up to them by testing valid 2x2 grids, which are subset's a valid 3x3 grid etc.