Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.c > #397630

Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge

From Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge
Date 2026-04-17 07:40 -0700
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <865x5p7ir6.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References (4 earlier) <20260411225637.0000632e@yahoo.com> <865x5x9kbw.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20260413171129.0000003d@yahoo.com> <86a4v26pup.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20260417144410.00006d46@yahoo.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 23:52:14 -0700
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

[...]

> I'd guess that every regular c.l.c reader knows that you like guessing
> games.  Even if I don't think that it is appropriate here, up to the
> certain limit, I am willing to participate.

I posted what I did because I wanted the focus to be on reading the
code and not on running the code.  I was hoping that understanding
would be feasible without needing any guessing.

> It's pretty easy to guess that the code above preceded by:
>
> [...]

Looks reasonable.

> However I both can not and don't want to guess the content of your
> cores routine best_next_ctype().  And without it I don't have much to
> say about you solution.

Here is one implementation of best_next_ctype():

Ctype
best_next_ctype( Index depth, Bset free, Bsets *bsets, Ctype ctypes[] ){
    // permute?
    return  ctypes[depth];
}

At the "permute?" comment an implementation could perform any
permutation of the elements of the ctypes[] array, within the range
of ctypes[depth] and ctypes[COOKIE_LIMIT-1], and the result should
still be a working solution.  Or just leave it as a comment.  The
correctness of the code doesn't depend on what permutation is done
or how the choice is made.

>> The main thing is I hope the above routine does a better job of
>> conveying my thoughts and understandings.
>
> It looks like unlike your friend you missed the key - equity of number
> of boxes and number of sorts of cookies is not accidental!

The way the code is written it allows the value of COOKIE_LIMIT to
be chosen independently of the value of N_BOXES (or at least I hope
it does).  I didn't explore any such cases but it might be
interesting to do that.

> It's the
> most important thing in the whole exercise.  It's what make solution
> feasible for much bigger values of N_BOXES, probably up to several K
> in less than 1 sec.

Of course for the code posted the value of N_BOXES must be no more
than the number of bits in the bitset type Bset (which is meant to
be short for "Box set", or a set of box values).

> But, then again, without source code of best_next_ctype() I can not be
> sure about it.

My questions are these.  One, could you understand what the code is
doing and how it works?  And two, if given an appropriate choice of
what permutation is done in best_next_ctype(), does this code do the
same thing as your code?  I was trying to match the behavior of your
code but I wasn't able to figure out how it decided where to go
next.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-01 16:34 +0300
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-04-01 10:02 -0400
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-01 17:15 +0300
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-04-01 10:28 -0400
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-01 17:58 +0300
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-01 15:20 +0100
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-01 17:56 +0300
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-01 19:50 +0100
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-04-01 15:56 -0400
          Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-01 23:33 +0100
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-04-04 07:43 +0100
          Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-04 11:54 +0100
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-04-01 15:24 -0400
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-04-01 17:24 -0400
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-04-02 16:25 +0100
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-02 17:10 +0100
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-02 22:19 +0300
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-04-02 13:03 -0400
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-04-02 18:52 +0100
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-02 19:50 +0100
          Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-02 22:24 +0300
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-04-02 20:13 +0100
          Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-02 22:36 +0300
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-02 22:14 +0300
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-02 22:10 +0300
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-04-06 22:36 +0100
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-06 15:42 -0700
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-06 15:44 -0700
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-04-04 13:33 -0400
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-04 21:03 +0300
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2026-04-04 14:19 -0400
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-04 20:22 +0100
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-04 22:40 +0300
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-04 17:08 -0700
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-08 08:42 -0700
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-08 22:23 +0300
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-09 21:22 -0700
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-10 12:23 +0300
          Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-10 22:41 -0700
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-10 16:16 +0300
          Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-11 04:27 -0700
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-11 22:56 +0300
          Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-11 15:57 -0700
            Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-12 02:15 +0300
            Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-13 02:03 +0300
            Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-13 17:11 +0300
              Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-16 23:52 -0700
                Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-17 14:44 +0300
                Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-17 07:40 -0700
                Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-17 18:30 +0300
                Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-20 00:43 +0300
                Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-21 20:37 +0300
                Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-21 18:22 -0700
                Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-22 12:05 +0300
                Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-29 06:55 -0700
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-15 02:15 +0300
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-16 02:57 -0700
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-17 17:04 +0300
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-08 23:45 +0300
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-09 16:37 -0700
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-10 17:02 +0300
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-11 03:45 -0700
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-09 00:01 +0300
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-09 17:07 -0700
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-10 18:06 +0300
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-11 04:31 -0700
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-16 03:22 -0700
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 17:58 +0200
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 18:08 +0200
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-17 17:47 +0100
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 19:24 +0200
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-17 19:58 +0000
      Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-04-18 05:52 +0200
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-18 11:53 +0100
          Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-18 12:04 +0100
        Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-18 20:35 +0300
  Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 19:52 +0200
    Re: Cookies in boxes - algorithmic challenge Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 20:17 +0200

csiph-web