Timeline for Terminology needed for the computational solution to the Rubik's Cube
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2015 at 18:30 | comment | added | TestingTuring | Alright, i will look into that. I've decided to go with a combination of methods for the program based off of various considerations, and this project will now be less about a language based approach and more about comparing different approaches. What i am missing now, however is a toolbox for comparing the variables of each approach (i.e. process time, thread requirements, memory requirement, RAM requirements, etc.). Also, my long term goals are ultimately in A.I., where would you suggest i go to learn more about search algorithms? | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 17:10 | comment | added | D.W.♦ | @TestingTuring, I don't know if there are cases in which they are decidable (rather: I'm sure there must be, but I don't know if they're useful and couldn't suggest any in particular). | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 2:37 | comment | added | TestingTuring | I googled closure properties for context-free languages who are not regular. When you say that it is undecideable in the general case, does that mean that there are cases in which they are decideable? | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 2:00 | comment | added | TestingTuring | I understand what you are saying. It sounds like i am using languages out of place, but in this particular instance, each generated string is also a string in the "cube search tree." What is interesting to me is that by using this methodology, i constrain the states that i test for success to only those generated by the first language, although this does come at a cost of increased testing time as the string gets longer and i have to put it into more "push down automata" to test it at a higher level. this is why i was particularly interested in finding patterns between context free grammars | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 1:37 | history | answered | D.W.♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |