From: Luke Blanshard <luke@...>
Date: 2006-02-11T22:24:29+09:00
Subject: Re: [SUMMARY] Splitting the Loot (#65)

Aha.  You need to be using my *second* solution, cleverly named 
"loot2.rb".  Though actually, when I tested them with your example, they 
both worked.  Can you give more detail?

Luke

Bill Dolinar wrote:
> One group of combinations I found that Luke's solution didn't work for 
> was when the loot included a single value to be split to one partner 
> such as:
>
> ruby loot.rb 3 5 4 4 1 1
>
> It will work if you expand the line in the pick function reading:
>
> i += 1 while i < values.size && values[i] >= sum
>
> to:
>
> if values[lo] == sum
>     i += 1
> else
>     i += 1 while i < values.size && values[i] >= sum
> end
>
> I'm not sure how this changed the speed, but for all solvable 
> combinations of 3 partners with a sum of 9 Luke's ran in 80 seconds, 
> and Manuel's ran in 105 seconds.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Manuel Kasten wrote:
>
>> I want to mention Luke Blanchard's second solution. It is the fastest
>> solution of those I tested that worked without flaws. I never ever saw
>> it running longer than 0.2 seconds and I did test it a *lot* (because it
>> is around factor 10-20 faster than the next correct solution, and I
>> thought it must fail sometimes, but it never did). I couldn't believe
>> its speed. I studied his code for ca. 30 min just to understand what
>> it's doing (luckily it's got a lot of comments, I wouldn't have been
>> able to understand it otherwise). Then I could tell it is indeed
>> correct, but its speed is nevertheless amazing.
>
>