Why does square based stacking game always reach the same number of maximum stackings?
The square stacking games works like this: theres a number NP which is the number of pegs on a board. On those pegs balls with numbers can be placed. But they can only be placed on a peg if they are either empty or have a ball on it whose number added to the one of the ball to be placed results in a number whose square root is a whole number (meaning if newball+oldball: 0,1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64...).
Each new balls value is one more than the previous. So we place ball 1 then ball 2 then ball 3 then ball 4 etc.
Now I have been tasked to develop an algorithm that given NP pegs determines how many balls can be placed.
So what I did is write a program the just takes a ball, determines all possible places it can be placed (except on empty pegs, there it always takes the first available) and then splits of into different paths through recursion determining all possible combinations of placement and then out of those finds the highest it got. Basicly brute force, since I have no idea how to optimise this problem, since for example placing a 3 on the 1 may prevent 8 from finding a partner, etc.
But what I found out is that now matter how I stack the blocks, it always seams to find a way to the the highest possible amount of blocks no matter what, even if I just always choose the first available block.
So I changed my algoerithm to always only choose the first available path and the result is always correct.
Of course, this doesn't make any sense. Balls should always block positions takeable by other balls and the combination of the the top layer of numbers is always completely different after a few balls.
So how can the end result always be the same?
Is there some mathematical principle I'm overlooking?
logic algorithms square-numbers
asked Jan 4 at 9:54
user1510024user1510024
31
add a comment |
The square stacking games works like this: theres a number NP which is the number of pegs on a board. On those pegs balls with numbers can be placed. But they can only be placed on a peg if they are either empty or have a ball on it whose number added to the one of the ball to be placed results in a number whose square root is a whole number (meaning if newball+oldball: 0,1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64...).
Each new balls value is one more than the previous. So we place ball 1 then ball 2 then ball 3 then ball 4 etc.
Now I have been tasked to develop an algorithm that given NP pegs determines how many balls can be placed.
So what I did is write a program the just takes a ball, determines all possible places it can be placed (except on empty pegs, there it always takes the first available) and then splits of into different paths through recursion determining all possible combinations of placement and then out of those finds the highest it got. Basicly brute force, since I have no idea how to optimise this problem, since for example placing a 3 on the 1 may prevent 8 from finding a partner, etc.
But what I found out is that now matter how I stack the blocks, it always seams to find a way to the the highest possible amount of blocks no matter what, even if I just always choose the first available block.
So I changed my algoerithm to always only choose the first available path and the result is always correct.
Of course, this doesn't make any sense. Balls should always block positions takeable by other balls and the combination of the the top layer of numbers is always completely different after a few balls.
So how can the end result always be the same?
Is there some mathematical principle I'm overlooking?
logic algorithms square-numbers
asked Jan 4 at 9:54
user1510024user1510024
31
add a comment |
The square stacking games works like this: theres a number NP which is the number of pegs on a board. On those pegs balls with numbers can be placed. But they can only be placed on a peg if they are either empty or have a ball on it whose number added to the one of the ball to be placed results in a number whose square root is a whole number (meaning if newball+oldball: 0,1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64...).
Each new balls value is one more than the previous. So we place ball 1 then ball 2 then ball 3 then ball 4 etc.
Now I have been tasked to develop an algorithm that given NP pegs determines how many balls can be placed.
So what I did is write a program the just takes a ball, determines all possible places it can be placed (except on empty pegs, there it always takes the first available) and then splits of into different paths through recursion determining all possible combinations of placement and then out of those finds the highest it got. Basicly brute force, since I have no idea how to optimise this problem, since for example placing a 3 on the 1 may prevent 8 from finding a partner, etc.
But what I found out is that now matter how I stack the blocks, it always seams to find a way to the the highest possible amount of blocks no matter what, even if I just always choose the first available block.
So I changed my algoerithm to always only choose the first available path and the result is always correct.
Of course, this doesn't make any sense. Balls should always block positions takeable by other balls and the combination of the the top layer of numbers is always completely different after a few balls.
So how can the end result always be the same?
Is there some mathematical principle I'm overlooking?
logic algorithms square-numbers
asked Jan 4 at 9:54
user1510024user1510024
31
The square stacking games works like this: theres a number NP which is the number of pegs on a board. On those pegs balls with numbers can be placed. But they can only be placed on a peg if they are either empty or have a ball on it whose number added to the one of the ball to be placed results in a number whose square root is a whole number (meaning if newball+oldball: 0,1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64...).
Each new balls value is one more than the previous. So we place ball 1 then ball 2 then ball 3 then ball 4 etc.
Now I have been tasked to develop an algorithm that given NP pegs determines how many balls can be placed.
So what I did is write a program the just takes a ball, determines all possible places it can be placed (except on empty pegs, there it always takes the first available) and then splits of into different paths through recursion determining all possible combinations of placement and then out of those finds the highest it got. Basicly brute force, since I have no idea how to optimise this problem, since for example placing a 3 on the 1 may prevent 8 from finding a partner, etc.
But what I found out is that now matter how I stack the blocks, it always seams to find a way to the the highest possible amount of blocks no matter what, even if I just always choose the first available block.
So I changed my algoerithm to always only choose the first available path and the result is always correct.
Of course, this doesn't make any sense. Balls should always block positions takeable by other balls and the combination of the the top layer of numbers is always completely different after a few balls.
So how can the end result always be the same?
Is there some mathematical principle I'm overlooking?
logic algorithms square-numbers
logic algorithms square-numbers
asked Jan 4 at 9:54
user1510024user1510024
31
asked Jan 4 at 9:54
user1510024user1510024
31
asked Jan 4 at 9:54
user1510024user1510024
31
asked Jan 4 at 9:54
user1510024user1510024
31
asked Jan 4 at 9:54
user1510024user1510024
31
31
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061474%2fwhy-does-square-based-stacking-game-always-reach-the-same-number-of-maximum-stac%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061474%2fwhy-does-square-based-stacking-game-always-reach-the-same-number-of-maximum-stac%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
