| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Just generate the output needed by the puzzle.
|
|
Don't try building ore robots if there are fewer than 10 rounds
remaining, or clays robots if there are fewer than 5. It's probably too
late for those robots to make a difference? Maybe?
(Why 5 and 10 rounds? Just a guess. And it seems to still get the right
result)
Drops time by 90% on 22-round test data (4.8s -> 0.4s)
|
|
Because we can only build one robot at a time, if the most expensive
robot in terms of ore takes 4 ore to build, we'll never need more than 4
ore robots. Because they can always collect enough ore to build one
robot of any type per turn.
Drops time by 90% on 20-round test data (5.4s -> 0.5s)
|
|
Drops time by about 20% on 20-round test data (6.6s -> 5.4s)
|
|
After reading the rules more carefully, I see we can only build one
robot per round! (Not just one robot per material type, one robot!) Doh!
This reduces the combinatorial explosion a lot. The exhaustive search
has become a lot more feasible, with Blueprint 2 of the test input able
to cover 22 rounds in a minute and a half. I shouldn't only need to find
some small wins from here to get the 24-round runtime to something
sensible.
|
|
As expected, the explosion in permutations makes this prohibitive.
With this stragegy, on Blueprint 2 of the test input, for:
10 rounds it takes 0.018s/59,979 iterations
11 rounds it takes 0.070s/1,257,483 iterations
12 rounds it takes 1.292s/59,156,010 iterations
13 rounds it takes 3m2.770s/8,395,942,157 iterations
Getting to 24 rounds just isn't feasible with that growth.
And I can't figure out how to cull unwanted permutations easily.
Going to have to try something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phew. Nice that the puzzles for the 24th have been pretty easy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back from Christmas travels, let's see if I can finish the set before
new year!
|
|
|
|
(Forgot to commit earlier, doh!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phew. Nice easy one for today! Caught up now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It produces *a* result for each blueprint, but not the best result.
I feel like that's a hard problem. The number of decisions about what to
build when over 24 iterations explodes so much that you can't
brute-force the optimal geode count.
Either there's a way of pruning possibilities that I've not thought of,
or there's a pretty good heuristic you can get from the blueprint about
the proportions of how many of each type of material you want to be
producing, that you can pick what to build and get a geode count that
doesn't deviate from optimal in only 24 iterations.
One other possibility is transforming this puzzle into a SAT format and
letting a SAT solver attack it, with its ability to prune decision trees
effectively. But I don't have any actual experience with those, and I'm
not sure I have time to figure that out for AoC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT_solver
|
|
|
|
Wow, it's hard figuring out the interior of a space. Did it the brute
force way, which worked OK because the total volume was small enough.
After part 1, I was hoping to be able to catch up the day I'm behind.
That's not happening today. We'll see how tomorrow's challenge goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You probably want to pass `-c` to cheat, if you want the solution in
less than a day!
|
|
|
|
I'm at least a day behind now, unsure where to start looking for issues
with my code for day 13, and struggling to visualise how to guarantee an
optimal solve for day 16 pt 2.
Oh well
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only tried it with test data before, where we don't need the permutation
pruning system. If you enable it with live data, it prevents any
permutations from being skipped, so it takes forever.
|
|
|
|
That was a tough one. Still takes 2.5s on my hardware. Should be able to
multithread the permuation search at some point, if I want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because we're storing the input lists *as a list*, when we compare
successive pairs of lists, we can't compare the list nodes themselves.
Instead, we compare the lists they point to.
Unfortunately, this doesn't change the answer we get. It does improve
runtime though!
|
