Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so hard, or
no
one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or… ?)
Cheers,
Peter
On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:19 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so hard,
or no
one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or… ?)
Perhaps a little harder than it may appear, or as you suggest, people
may be busy. In the worst case, a brute force solution should be easy
to do.
I may try this later today, or tomorrow, once I’m done with the last
papers I need for school and some other errands.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Matthew M. [email protected] wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:19 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Is it possible to post a solution already? (I guess the question is
poetical, just strange that no one posted one yet - was it so hard, or no
one has time amidst the pre-XMas craze, or… ?)Perhaps a little harder than it may appear, or as you suggest, people may
be busy. In the worst case, a brute force solution should be easy to do.
Seeing as how this quiz has been so quiet, here’s a v quick (and very
brute
force!) attempt: http://pastie.org/339925 - - please be kind! 
On 15.12.2008, at 23:07 , Matthew M. wrote:
hard, or no
very bruteWhat I meant is that if I give Janet garden/lavender/orange, I
should not also give Nancy garden/lavender/orange. I want a distinct
combination for each recipient.
I am not about to partake but these requirements seem to conflict, no?
ppl = [:janet, :nancy, :betty]
candles = [:lavender => 3, :garden => 3, :orange => 3].
the following seems like the best answer to me but contains duplication,
lav, lav, ger
gar, or, or
gar, or, lav
the “uniquest” would be:
lav, lav, lav
gar, gar, gar
or. or. or
but it has more duplication whereas the least duplication has no
uniqueness:
lav, gar, or
lav, gar, or
lav, gar, or
How is uniqueness supposed to be balanced against duplication?
einarmagnus
On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:44 PM, steven shingler wrote:
Perhaps a little harder than it may appear, or as you suggest,
people may
be busy. In the worst case, a brute force solution should be easy
to do.Seeing as how this quiz has been so quiet, here’s a v quick (and
very brute
force!) attempt: http://pastie.org/339925 - - please be kind!
Minor point… I probably wasn’t clear by “minimize group duplication.”
In your code, you use dup_count in an attempt to avoid having a
particular recipient’s gift contain duplication candles. Actually, I
like this requirement, although it wasn’t what I meant. (Other subs:
please try and make each gift without candle duplication.)
What I meant is that if I give Janet garden/lavender/orange, I should
not also give Nancy garden/lavender/orange. I want a distinct
combination for each recipient.
But seriously, it will depend on the input. If I had to choose between
those options, I’d prefer to give individuals a variety of fragrances
(avoid duplication more than enforcing uniqueness).
oops that sucks (should have read the quiz more carefully) - my solution
is enforcing uniqueness but doesn’t care about duplication at all 
Shouldn’t take too much effort to add that though… will do tomorrow.
Cheers,
Peter
On Dec 15, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Einar Magnús Boson wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:19 AM, [email protected] wrote:
to do.
In your code, you use dup_count in an attempt to avoid having agar, or, lav
lav, gar, or
lav, gar, or
lav, gar, orHow is uniqueness supposed to be balanced against duplication?
By buying more candles. 
But seriously, it will depend on the input. If I had to choose between
those options, I’d prefer to give individuals a variety of fragrances
(avoid duplication more than enforcing uniqueness).
But seriously, it will depend on the input. If I had to choose between
those options, I’d prefer to give individuals a variety of fragrances
(avoid duplication more than enforcing uniqueness).
Ok so a beefed up version (no duplicates if possible, and as unique as
possible):
Cheers,
Peter