Every problem in computation is potentially hard,but experience and step by step progress makes it easier. any branch of Computer science goes hand to hand with very strong hold on Mathematics especially Algebra and logarithms . Students should be encouraged to understand core foundation of computing from circuits to binary,programming to interfaces. There is an extremely thin layer between science and philosophy.

Thanks to read Sir. ]]>

Yes, there are good number of ‘heuristics’ (approximations) for the TSP, and related problems, particularly for special cases, where the measure of cost satisfies some (often real-world) restriction. Possibly the best known is the ‘Christofides Algorithm’, which guarantees solutions within 50% of optimal for ‘road-map-type’ problems and similar. Other methods are known, through extensive testing, to perform excellently in practice, although they don’t often have theoretical guarantees.

I’d be interested to hear what others think about your ‘interesting’ measure for games and suchlike. Certainly, you make a valid point about the game-space potentially being too small OR too big to be interesting but there might be some objections to a single measure of ‘interesting’ in the way you suggest; two come to mind. Firstly, from an optimisation perspective, there’s no direct relationship between the size of a problem’s solution space and the complexity of the problem; some problems have infinite solution spaces but are easy to solve; playing a game is effectively executing a (probably heuristic) algorithm and much of the interest in probably in the algorithm – not explicitly the game. Secondly, a lot depends on people, of course; the ability to deal with the game-space is a crude measure of how good someone is at the game; some might struggle with simple games while others may excel at complex ones; a single measure is probably unrealistic?

An example of a game (for me) that’s just TOO complicated to be fun to play is ‘Reversi/Othello’, in which the entire balance of power of the game can completely flip over right at the end. Keeping the end in mind through all the permutations that lead up to it just seems impossible to me. But perhaps I haven’t played it enough and/or I’m just not very good at it?

]]>On another blog, I somehow got to speculating about whether there could be a measure for interestingness and, if so, how could it be calculated. The topic came up on connection with chess. Part of what is interesting about chess is the number of permutations possible. For example, I think we could say it is definitely more interesting than tick-tack-toe which has a very limited range of plays. On the other hand, if the chess board was four times bigger and there were a lot more pieces the game might get less interesting because strategy would become impossible. This is much the same as the progression from easy problems (tic-tack-toe) to really hard, non-solvable problems (giant chess board). Any thoughts on whether the difficulty a problem could be measured?

]]>