this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
20 points (91.7% liked)
Advent Of Code
768 readers
1 users here now
An unofficial home for the advent of code community on programming.dev!
Advent of Code is an annual Advent calendar of small programming puzzles for a variety of skill sets and skill levels that can be solved in any programming language you like.
AoC 2023
Solution Threads
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
25 |
Rules/Guidelines
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep all content related to advent of code in some way
- If what youre posting relates to a day, put in brackets the year and then day number in front of the post title (e.g. [2023 Day 10])
- When an event is running, keep solutions in the solution megathread to avoid the community getting spammed with posts
Relevant Communities
Relevant Links
Credits
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
console.log('Hello World')
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Personally, I'm not a fan of requiring analysis of the individualized input to reach the correct (sufficiently efficient) solution for part 2. Or maybe I'm just resentful because I feel like I've been duped after writing an generalized-to-the-puzzle-description-but-insufficiently-efficient solution. ๐
These quantum ghosts need to come back down to reality.
Perhaps there's a mathematical way to prove that this assumption will actually always happen despite the input? I wanted to test this assumption, and edited the map and randomly changes the destinations for keys ending in Z, and it looks like the matches are still at consistent intervals. Is it possible to have an input map which breaks the assumption?
This assumption doesn't hold in general, however you can construct an efficient algorithm, even if it doesn't hold.
First, let's show that a cycle always exists. Let
I
be the size of the instruction string, andN
be the number of nodes. Since the number of states for each ghost is at mostI*N
, after a finite number of steps, the ghost will go into one of the previous states and cycle forever. Let's say that the cycle length isc
, and aftera+c
steps the ghost has entered the same state it was aftera
steps.Let's assume[^1] that during the first
a+c
steps the ghost has only once encounter an end state (a node ending with 'Z'), specifically aftere
states. Ife >= a
, this means that the ghost will encounter the end state also aftere + c
ande + 2c
and so on, or for every number of stepss > e
such thats = e (mod c)
. The assumption you formulated meanse = 0 (mod c)
, ore = c
.Now, consider the
K
ghosts that are travelling simultaneously. If aftern
steps all ghosts have reached the end state, this means thatn = e_i (mod c_i)
for all ghostsi
(1 <= i <= K
). According to the Chinese remainder theorem, there is a solution if and only ife_1 = e_2 = ... = e_K (mod gcd(c_1, c_2, ... c_K))
. If the assumption you formulated holds, thene_i = 0 (mod c_i)
, solcm(c_1, ... c_K)
works as a solution. If it doesn't, you can still findn
, but it will be a bit more tricky (which is probably why the authors of the challenge madee = c
always).[^1] -- this is another assumption you've implicitly made, and that happens to hold for all the inputs. However, if this assumption doesn't hold, we can check all possible combination of end state positions.
re [^1]: yeah, but that may explode the runtime again. Do you have any idea if this is possible to solve without brute forcing the combinations?
I don't think it will explode the runtime. If you have multiple feasible values for
e
per ghost, you just need to find a combination ofe_i
such thate_1 = e_2 = ... = e_K (mod gcd(c_1, c_2, ... c_K))
, which is just an intersection ofK
sets of at mostI*N
elements.