It seems like if your primitive operation is "break bar in two" you need exactly n-1 breaks to get n squares, no matter what choice you make for where to break along the chocolate grid. This is a simple consequence of the fact that each break increases the number of pieces by one.
If you're allowed to hold multiple pieces in your hand when you do the break it's different. Then you need a model of how the hands hold the chocolate. I think there is a problem when the breaks get complicated, as if you have to hold the pieces for too long while setting up the break, some of the chocolate will melt onto your fingers. -- ryan On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:56 AM, apfelmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Coppin wrote: >> The other day, I sat down to eat a 2 Kg block of chocolate - one of >> those ones that's divided into lots of little squares. I proceeded to >> recursively subdivide it into smaller and smaller blocks, and then eat >> the individual squares in depth-first order. It was only after getting >> through 16 of the things that I stopped to notice that the whole bar >> just happens to have an exact power of two squares on it. >> >> And it was some time after *that* when I thought to myself "...woah, >> maybe do too much Haskell?" o_O >> >> Seriously, who recursively subdivides their food? I think I have >> something wrong with me... > > A much more important question is: how many "break bar in two" > operations did you perform? Can you do it with less? > > > Regards, > apfelmus > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
