Timeline for Represent a 5 card poker hand
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2017 at 11:34 | history | edited | paparazzo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2012 characters in body
|
| Apr 7, 2017 at 11:33 | vote | accept | paparazzo | ||
| Apr 6, 2017 at 23:58 | vote | accept | paparazzo | ||
| Apr 6, 2017 at 23:59 | |||||
| Apr 6, 2017 at 23:42 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 16:12 | answer | added | Yuval Filmus | timeline score: 10 | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 15:19 | comment | added | paparazzo | @YuvalFilmus Please forget how I am using this key. I have 5 values 1-52. Value cannot repeat in the 5. Order does not matter. 22 15 50 3 7 must equal 3 7 22 15 50 . What is the smallest number to uniquely identify the 5 where they are not first sorted. For example I could use the first 52 primes and multiply but that is bigger than 2 power 52. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 15:05 | comment | added | Yuval Filmus | What do you mean by key? Do you want two hands which are the same up to order to map to the same key? | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 11:21 | comment | added | paparazzo | @MSalters As stated in my question. A sort doubles the time for the method. Can you just accept the stated question? I am looking for a key of 5 numbers 0-51 where the numbers can be in any order and the key is still less than or equal 32 bits. I am not really sorting the numbers - I am feeding the the number pre sorted. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 11:14 | comment | added | MSalters | @Paparazzi: Just in case you hadn't realized it, the existing answer is far more complex than sorting 5 6-bit values using a dedicated sorting network. Sure, you may have millions of hands, but such a simple sort can be done tens of millions of times per second. Randomly generating the hand will also be slower than sorting it. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 11:04 | comment | added | paparazzo | @MSalters I am asking for 32 bits or less that does not require the 5 numbers be sorted. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 11:02 | comment | added | paparazzo | @DavidRicherby Not even close. I am not using a library. It is not sorting on the number directly. I insert the numbers pre sorted. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 9:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 14, 2017 at 3:05 | |||||
| Apr 6, 2017 at 9:00 | comment | added | MSalters | In practice, most items that are not <=16 bits might as well be 32 bits. So since you need at least 23 bits, any encoding which uses <=32 bits is probably viable. The trivial 6 bits per card * 5 card encoding works well enough. There's one caveat: a 23 bit array index is much better than a 32 bits array index. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 8:48 | comment | added | David Richerby | @Paparazzi No, Yuval is telling you to write your own sorting routine that is specifically tuned to sorting five numbers between 1 and 52. You tried using a library routine, which is slow because it is much more general than this and because the recursive nature of quicksort makes it very inefficient on short lists. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 4:33 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCompSci/status/849842427808624640 | ||
| Apr 6, 2017 at 2:04 | history | edited | paparazzo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 1:52 | history | edited | paparazzo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 214 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 0:37 | comment | added | paparazzo | @dw Yes the sort is simple but what I am doing (millions of times) is simple. I tested and a sort doubles the time. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 0:36 | history | edited | paparazzo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 142 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2017 at 21:49 | comment | added | D.W.♦ | I don't understand why you say "The sort is not simple". The sort is simple -- convert each card to a number from 1 to 52, so that the hand is represented by a list (of length 5) of cards. Sort that list. That is just the problem of sorting a list of 5 integers, which can be done very fast, as Yuval mentions. I suggest that you measure before assuming that it is too slow, but my guess is that sorting such a list will be very fast and might even be faster than a random-access memory read that doesn't hit in the cache. | |
| Apr 5, 2017 at 21:30 | history | edited | paparazzo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 159 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2017 at 21:10 | history | edited | paparazzo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2017 at 20:56 | history | edited | paparazzo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 106 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2017 at 20:47 | comment | added | Yuval Filmus | Use a hand-coded sorting algorithm which works for sorting lists of length 5. This is probably faster than the library function you're currently using. | |
| Apr 5, 2017 at 20:45 | history | edited | paparazzo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 308 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2017 at 20:31 | history | edited | paparazzo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 320 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2017 at 20:29 | answer | added | D.W.♦ | timeline score: 13 | |
| Apr 5, 2017 at 20:15 | history | asked | paparazzo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |