Content deleted Content added
→Algorithm description slightly misleading/inaccurate?: premature optimization? |
|||
Line 75:
'''I totally agree''' — the rule should be explicitly reported in the scheme box, as the 2nd condition on which the algoritm terminates
(this time unsuccessfully). Perhaps, the best place to put it would be right after point 1 (i.e., after the successful the termination condition). While it is obvious why the algorithm should stop unsuccessfully on any matrix having an all-zero column (no complete coverage is possible in this case, since the set element represented by such column belongs to no subset), the way in which the (nice) example is worked out makes the unsuccessful termination of '''Level 1: Select Row A''' unnecessarily obscure.[[User:Banquo71|Banquo71]] ([[User talk:Banquo71|talk]]) 13:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
: That's a good point, but I suspect that sort of no-solution matrix (a matrix with at least one column C without any 1s) never actually occurs during normal operation, if we add the precondition:
: 1. Before starting Algorithm X, check if there is a column ''c'' without any 1s. If so, there is no solution, so don't even bother running Algorithm X.
: If that situation is checked once before starting Algorithm X, the algorithm never changes a matrix where every column has at least 1 into that sort of problematic matrix, right?
: Is "optimizing" this algorithm to do that check only once, rather than every iteration, a premature optimization? --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 03:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
==Quotation without attribution==
| |||