No new 17s within {-2+2}

Everything about Sudoku that doesn't fit in one of the other sections

Re:

Postby Serg » Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:13 pm

< Withdrown >
Serg
2018 Supporter
 
Posts: 860
Joined: 01 June 2010
Location: Russia

Re: No new 17s within {-2+2}

Postby dobrichev » Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:55 am

The recent estimations for {-3,+3} search over the known 17s show that about one year is needed on a 32 core 3.2 GHz Ivy Bridge CPU.
A single thread {+3} on the alphabetically first 17-3 subgrid takes 28.327 seconds = 310 days on 32 cores. The 10 alphabetically last subgrids are processed for 335.182 seconds = 367 days on 32 cores.
This is about as twice as faster than the estimations done in the last years but twice slower than the estimation in my previous post.
dobrichev
2016 Supporter
 
Posts: 1850
Joined: 24 May 2010

Re: No new 17s within {-2+2}

Postby champagne » Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:09 am

dobrichev wrote:The recent estimations for {-3,+3} search over the known 17s show that about one year is needed on a 32 core 3.2 GHz Ivy Bridge CPU.
A single thread {+3} on the alphabetically first 17-3 subgrid takes 28.327 seconds = 310 days on 32 cores. The 10 alphabetically last subgrids are processed for 335.182 seconds = 367 days on 32 cores.
This is about as twice as faster than the estimations done in the last years but twice slower than the estimation in my previous post.

Hi Mladen,

just to catch clearly what id done
{-3,+3] means

-kill 3 clues among the 17 known
-add 3 clues taken in the 54 unknown

all that in blind mode (any combination)

is it right
champagne
2017 Supporter
 
Posts: 7355
Joined: 02 August 2007
Location: France Brittany

Re: No new 17s within {-2+2}

Postby dobrichev » Wed Oct 15, 2014 3:06 pm

Right.
dobrichev
2016 Supporter
 
Posts: 1850
Joined: 24 May 2010

{-3+3} estimations

Postby dobrichev » Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:44 am

Some {+3} timings measured on 2 x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 0 @ 2.70GHz (Sandy Bridge, total 32 threads on 2 x 8 physical cores).

The source data are 30 302 691 essentially different 14-given subgrids at {-3} to the known 49157 17s, lexicographically ordered and partitioned to 304 chunks of size 100 000.

Chunk 000 (100 000 subgrids)
CPU time 4622958 seconds (= 54 days)
Execution time ~ 48 hours
Puzzles produced 236244
Essentially different puzzles produced 24720

Chunks 001 to 301
On hold, waiting for quantum/gravitational/other computer.

Chunk 302 (100 000 subgrids)
CPU time 4934273 seconds (= 57 days)
Execution time ~ 53 hours
Puzzles produced 131158
Essentially different puzzles produced 4310

Chunk 303 (2691 subgrids)
CPU time 145830 seconds (= 2 days)
Execution time ~ 1 hour
Puzzles produced 3434
Essentially different puzzles produced 1435

For better readability the number of new 17-clue puzzles found along with some other zeroes are not shown.
dobrichev
2016 Supporter
 
Posts: 1850
Joined: 24 May 2010

Re: No new 17s within {-2+2}

Postby champagne » Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:05 am

Hi Mladen,

I don't catch clearly what is the final goal of that process.

Is it a tentative proof that you can generate all known 17's out of the 14's patterns ?

what else ??
champagne
2017 Supporter
 
Posts: 7355
Joined: 02 August 2007
Location: France Brittany

Re: No new 17s within {-2+2}

Postby dobrichev » Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:07 pm

27.7% of {-3,+3} is done with no new 17s found.
dobrichev
2016 Supporter
 
Posts: 1850
Joined: 24 May 2010

Re: No new 17s within {-2+2}

Postby blue » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:22 pm

Hi Mladen,

dobrichev wrote:27.7% of {-3,+3} is done with no new 17s found.

Did you ever finish the {-3,+3} search ?
blue
 
Posts: 979
Joined: 11 March 2013

Re: No new 17s within {-2+2}

Postby dobrichev » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:37 pm

Yes. Months after your latest 17 findings. The {-3,+3} search should found some of them, but they were already involved in the mill.
dobrichev
2016 Supporter
 
Posts: 1850
Joined: 24 May 2010

Re: {-3+3} estimations

Postby blue » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:59 pm

Thanks for the update.

dobrichev wrote:For better readability the number of new 17-clue puzzles found along with some other zeroes are not shown.

I didn't catch that the first time around. :lol:
blue
 
Posts: 979
Joined: 11 March 2013

Re: No new 17s within {-2+2}

Postby dobrichev » Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:32 am

Actually I've reported the {-3,+3} finalization here.
dobrichev
2016 Supporter
 
Posts: 1850
Joined: 24 May 2010

Re: No new 17s within {-2+2}

Postby blue » Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:08 pm

Yes, indeed.
After seeing it again, I remember reading the {-3,+3} thread.

Apologies.
I was looking for this post, and found myself here.
blue
 
Posts: 979
Joined: 11 March 2013

Previous

Return to General