Theoretical Computer Science 2

And another mistake found in the 4-Queens problem. Bu,t hey, the lecturer's advice is ":Ignore it!". I must try the Unisa approach on our customers: "Oh, you found a bug? So? Just ignore it."by

I got a response from the lecturer concerned telling me that I'm welcome to ignore the paper. Assuming that's good advice (which I don't think it is): Don't try to make too much sense of stuff that is wrong. Unfortunately there's a lot of wrong stuff in this paper so perhaps throw the whole thing away. The quality assurance on this was deplorable.by

I did. In fact I also sent a request to the HoD asking him to investigate how this unprofessional piece of work could be sent out. I've never seen anything like it for the sheer number of errors. I trust that I'll get a response otherwise I will be escalating this.. Question 6.3, in particular, is inexcusably bad. It's also worth noting that there were at least 3 errors in the assignmeby

In case my previous post wasn';t sufficiently clear: (Pheramone ^ ~StateBitOn) -> (Move ^ SetOn) cannot be determined from the scanty information provided. I.e., the "model answer" is, to put it charitably, nonsense. In fact, it looks doubtful that any of the statements from propositional logic can be determined from what we've been told. I trust that: 1. We will getby

This paper seems absurd. Can anybody explain in 6.3 how (Pheramone ^ ~StateBitOn) -> (Move ^ SetOn) from what we've been told? Obviously the word "Pheramone" should be "Pheromone" but this spelling mistake is less serious than the questions. Seriously, who sent out this "solution"? Who set it? Who reviewed it? My own qualifications to speak on AI are naby

As noted above there is a problem with the solution 2.2 for the game of Nim (the transition (2,5) -> (1,3,3) is not a valid move) Astonishingly there is another problem. The rows labelled MIN should be labelled MAX and consequently the procedure for choosing the best move actually chooses the worst. For example, the deepest node labelled (1,1,1,1,1,2) has a score of 0 implying a loss forby

There's a mistake in Appendix A as well. The information content values I for some values of p are inconsistent. If I(0.5+d) = x, then x = I(0.5-d) as well (from the definition of I). That would mean that I(0.6) = I(0.5+0.1) = I(0.5-0.1) = I(0.4). But, from the table I(0.6) = 0.98 and I(0.4) = 0.96. In fact the most accurate answer is that I(0.6) = I(0.4) = 0.97. This is somewhat seriouby

There are two errors in the sample exam paper. 1. The sample solution for the 4-queens problem is not a solution. The queens in columns 2 and 3 are attacking each other. 2. The efficiency offered by alpha-beta pruning is significantly better than claimed. Assume that naive minimax needs to evaluate n states, it is claimed that alpha-beta pruning can reduce the number of states that need toby

1400 km, too far? You obviously have never been to one of my parties.by

I got mine back a couple of weeks ago.by

I thought that this was a fun course and that a suitable way to celebrate it might be to watch BladeRunner(*) and eat pizza (or some other form of junk food) and drink beer, wine or soft drinks, one Saturday evening in September before exams truly take hold. Anybody else think that's a good idea. It can be hosted at my place. (*) I registered for this course because I thought we'd learn hoby

g++ is, actually, a GOOD compiler in that it conforms better than most C++ compilers to the ANSI standard. The problems are more that (1) C++ is an over-engineered language (to quote Alan Kay, "I'm the guy who coined the term `object-oriented programming and C++ was not what I had in mind" and (2) Malik is a pretty poor textbook.by

I also regard this as one of the worst books that I've used; it's an incredibly tedious read which it shouldn't be since data structures are inherently interesting. There are better books on this subject (for example, the old text book by Weiss). Even the Schaum outline series on data structures using C++ is a better read since the author doesn't put you to sleep. Malik's coding is also unusuaby

In response to Justin, the identity is true whether or not 0 or 1 is your base element. It's like being asked to prove that 1 + 2 + 3...+ n = n * (n+1) / 2 for n > 93. That relationship is true for n > 93 but it's also true if n > 52 or n > 9 or, in fact, for n >= 0. Essentially all that you're doing is changing the base element in your inductive proof.by

One solution for overloading the stream insertion operator is to declare the friend function as below template<class Type> class linkedListType { template <class U> friend ostream& operator<<(ostream&, const linkedListType<U>& ) ; ... etc } Note that the above has two template declarations, <class Type> and <class U>. It's confusing bby

FWIW, I assumed that the question should have referred to A, B, C and D.by