Re: is this a good way to find anagrams?


#1

i goofed up my thread by using the word “anagram” incorrectly, or too
loosely…
i also wanted to find all the smaller words that i can make with the
letters that i have.
for example i would like for “monkey” to return with “monk” and “key”
and “money” and so on, not just 6 letter
words.

i think this makes it so you can’t use the methods where you sort
everything first, which i discovered didnt work
all the time if you want smaller words too.
if you sort “monkey” you get “ekmnoy” but if you sort “monkeys” you get
“ekmnosy”, which means if your letters
are “monkeys”, you wont get “monkey” back. that s is a big monkey wrench
between o and y.

maybe i should do the sort first way on the words in the dictionary that
have the same amount of letters, and
then do some other way on all the words that have less letters, and skip
all the words that are too long?

i’m still glad for all the nice anagram (in the strict sense) finder
code in this thread. this is the best list ever.

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Schröder removed_email_address@domain.invalid
Date: Friday, December 9, 2005 4:15 am
Subject: Re: is this a good way to find anagrams?


#2

removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

i goofed up my thread by using the word “anagram” incorrectly, or too
loosely… i also wanted to find all the smaller words that i can
make with the letters that i have. for example i would like for
“monkey” to return with “monk” and “key” and “money” and so on, not
just 6 letter words.

One interesting way to do subset finding in words is to hook up a fast
bignum library (I think ruby/gsl should do this), and index each letter
with a prime number, so that a word maps to the product of its letters.
Then word_b contains word_a if number_b % number_a == 0.

martin