Sorry, I was unclear. By “best method I know for trying random solutions” I meant evolutionary algorithms. (Which I think of as “guess randomly, then mix guesses randomly, then mutate guesses randomly, then select randomly biased towards the the best you found, then repeat from step two”. Of course, there’s a bit of smartness needed when applying the randomness, but still.)
Some people however, solved a difficult puzzle.
I think we’re having mostly a terminology disagreement. I tend to think of EA as “finding a solution” rather than “solving the problem”, which I agree is not the most logical and precise use of language.
On another subject, I fear I may have offended you. If so, I apologize, and kudos for keeping calm enough to make it hard for me to be sure :)
I specifically said that the algorithms are stupid. That wasn’t meant to disparage anyone that uses them. I well know that it’s not at all trivial to write such an algorithm, and that there are good and bad ways of doing it, and that one can put a lot of cleverness in one. The authors of an algorithms that “won” a record in an important problem are very probably very smart people. But the algorithm itself may still be stupid, in the sense that it’s closer to brute force than actually finding the solution with a minimum of (computing) effort.
Technically speaking EA is stupid in the sense it’s very brief. The actual implementation is another matter.
But what is important in this context is the following: The algorithm’s results in this matching context are quite sloppy in the sense, that the squares don’t even touch each other to gain some more space. Still,the whole circle setting is so clever, that it can afford this generosity and still wins! After then, some humans often polish the evolved solution and claim the victory. What’s perfectly fine, the whole log exists.
Sorry, I was unclear. By “best method I know for trying random solutions” I meant evolutionary algorithms. (Which I think of as “guess randomly, then mix guesses randomly, then mutate guesses randomly, then select randomly biased towards the the best you found, then repeat from step two”. Of course, there’s a bit of smartness needed when applying the randomness, but still.)
I think we’re having mostly a terminology disagreement. I tend to think of EA as “finding a solution” rather than “solving the problem”, which I agree is not the most logical and precise use of language.
On another subject, I fear I may have offended you. If so, I apologize, and kudos for keeping calm enough to make it hard for me to be sure :)
I specifically said that the algorithms are stupid. That wasn’t meant to disparage anyone that uses them. I well know that it’s not at all trivial to write such an algorithm, and that there are good and bad ways of doing it, and that one can put a lot of cleverness in one. The authors of an algorithms that “won” a record in an important problem are very probably very smart people. But the algorithm itself may still be stupid, in the sense that it’s closer to brute force than actually finding the solution with a minimum of (computing) effort.
Technically speaking EA is stupid in the sense it’s very brief. The actual implementation is another matter.
But what is important in this context is the following: The algorithm’s results in this matching context are quite sloppy in the sense, that the squares don’t even touch each other to gain some more space. Still,the whole circle setting is so clever, that it can afford this generosity and still wins! After then, some humans often polish the evolved solution and claim the victory. What’s perfectly fine, the whole log exists.