«

Ray Greene wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:29:13 +1200, "~misfit~"
> <> wrote:
>
>> Ray Greene wrote:
>>> Level 11, 20:17. My head hurts and I can't see straight
>>
>> Amazing, I couldn't maintain the concentration that long. Well done.
>
> Thanks
>
> I finished 13 but 14 was just too hard and there wasn't enough screen
> space to lay everything out clearly.
>
> It's a lot like cleaning up a badly done electrical drawing, which I
> sometimes have to do at work. I think it would be an excellent tool
> for training printed circuit board designers

Good point. I didn't see the correlation at first (probably because I've
never designed printed circuit boards) but, yes, very similar.
--
~misfit~

"~misfit~" <> wrote in message
news:...
> The Black Wibble wrote:
>> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Try this for a few minutes:
>>>
>>> http://home.cwru.edu/~jnt5/Planarity/
>>>
>>
>> Score 3074.
>>
>> I solved level 5 in 4 minutes something and Level 6 in 31:01. Life
>> is too short.for Level 7.
>
> Wow! Well done Tony. You got further than I did, I didn't even manage to
> solve level 6, I had to go to bed.
> --
> ~misfit~

Level 1 only. Looked at level 2 and thought 'why the hell am
I doing this?

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 08:58:06 +1200, Ray Greene wrote:

> I think 12 was harder than 13. 14 was too hard and I gave up and watched Men
> In Black instead.

And in your spare time you arrange sand grains on the beach ? lol, only
joking.

--

.... Brendan

#10958 +(3922)- [X]

(morganj): 0 is false and 1 is true, correct?
(alec_eso): 1, morganj
(morganj): bastard.


Note: All my comments are copyright 17/07/2005 5:21:55 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.

In article <dbbslq$pmd$>, says...
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:29:13 +1200, "~misfit~" <>
> wrote:

> Thanks
>
> I finished 13 but 14 was just too hard and there wasn't enough screen space
> to lay everything out clearly.
>
Well myself and several friends have gone mad with this now.
Just finished 14 - 50 minutes (between work).
You just need to lay the dots out close together in an orderly manner.

The trouble with the higher ones, is that it is presumably doing an
exponential search for crossed vertices, and as the numbers get high the
computations take a long time towards the end.

Pete

>

--
--
Remove pants from email address to reply.

Peter Grooby wrote:
> In article <dbbslq$pmd$>, says...
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:29:13 +1200, "~misfit~"
>> <> wrote:
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> I finished 13 but 14 was just too hard and there wasn't enough
>> screen space to lay everything out clearly.
>>
> Well myself and several friends have gone mad with this now.
> Just finished 14 - 50 minutes (between work).
> You just need to lay the dots out close together in an orderly manner.
>
> The trouble with the higher ones, is that it is presumably doing an
> exponential search for crossed vertices, and as the numbers get high
> the computations take a long time towards the end.

Well, I did entitle this "Wanna go insane?" Good to know that you've gone
mad, it's not as bad as people make out.
--
~misfit~

> > The trouble with the higher ones, is that it is presumably doing an
> > exponential search for crossed vertices, and as the numbers get high
> > the computations take a long time towards the end.
>
> Well, I did entitle this "Wanna go insane?" Good to know that you've gone
> mad, it's not as bad as people make out.
>
I've been cured now.
Finished number 17 and that will be it. I've worked out how to solve
them methodically now, and the wait times were getting exponentially
bad. Like 10 minutes per end-move in the end.

Pete
--
--
Remove pants from email address to reply.