John Yeung writes:
> On May 5, 11:37 pm, Ross wrote:
>
>> On May 5, 10:33 am, MRAB wrote:
>>
>> > Here's my approach (incomplete):
>>
>> FYI... I was testing your code further and discovered a strange
>> outcome... when there are 16 people for 7 courts, every 7th
>> round your code produces 4 b
On May 7, 8:32 pm, Ross wrote:
> I've managed to solve the problem. If you go in
> order, the discrepancy between the player with the
> least amount of byes and the greatest amount of byes
> is only 1.
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but that's not the case for all
values. For example, with
On May 7, 1:11 am, John Yeung wrote:
> On May 7, 12:30 am, Ross wrote:
>
>
>
> > If I were to set up a dictionary that counted players used in the bye
> > list and only allowed players to be added to the bye list if they were
> > within 2 of the least used player, would this be a good approach fo
John Yeung wrote:
On May 7, 12:30 am, Ross wrote:
If I were to set up a dictionary that counted players used in the bye
list and only allowed players to be added to the bye list if they were
within 2 of the least used player, would this be a good approach for
managing bye selection or would usi
On May 7, 12:30 am, Ross wrote:
>
> If I were to set up a dictionary that counted players used in the bye
> list and only allowed players to be added to the bye list if they were
> within 2 of the least used player, would this be a good approach for
> managing bye selection or would using a dictio
On May 6, 3:14 pm, John Yeung wrote:
> On May 6, 3:29 am, MRAB wrote:
>
> > I have the feeling that if the number of rounds is restricted then the
> > difference between the minimum and maximum number of byes could be 2
> > because of the requirement that players shouldn't play each other more
>
On May 6, 3:14 pm, John Yeung wrote:
> On May 6, 3:29 am, MRAB wrote:
>
> > I have the feeling that if the number of rounds is restricted then the
> > difference between the minimum and maximum number of byes could be 2
> > because of the requirement that players shouldn't play each other more
>
On May 6, 3:14 pm, John Yeung wrote:
> On May 6, 3:29 am, MRAB wrote:
>
> > I have the feeling that if the number of rounds is restricted then the
> > difference between the minimum and maximum number of byes could be 2
> > because of the requirement that players shouldn't play each other more
>
On May 6, 3:29 am, MRAB wrote:
> I have the feeling that if the number of rounds is restricted then the
> difference between the minimum and maximum number of byes could be 2
> because of the requirement that players shouldn't play each other more
> than once, meaning that the players have to be
On May 5, 10:49 am, Ross wrote:
> I'm interested to see what you did. From your description,
> it sounds like I've tried what you've done, but when I
> implemented my version, it took minutes to evaluate for
> bigger numbers. If that isn't the case with yours, I'd be
> interested in seeing your im
John Yeung wrote:
On May 5, 11:37 pm, Ross wrote:
On May 5, 10:33 am, MRAB wrote:
Here's my approach (incomplete):
FYI... I was testing your code further and discovered a strange
outcome... when there are 16 people for 7 courts, every 7th
round your code produces 4 byes instead of the corr
On May 5, 11:37 pm, Ross wrote:
> On May 5, 10:33 am, MRAB wrote:
>
> > Here's my approach (incomplete):
>
> FYI... I was testing your code further and discovered a strange
> outcome... when there are 16 people for 7 courts, every 7th
> round your code produces 4 byes instead of the correct 2 by
On May 5, 10:33 am, MRAB wrote:
> Ross wrote:
> > On May 5, 12:32 am, John Yeung wrote:
> >> On May 5, 1:12 am, John Yeung wrote:
>
> >>> [...] the problem may require bigger guns (either much better
> >>> math or much more sophisticated programming).
> >> Yes, I'm responding to myself.
>
> >> W
On May 5, 1:33 pm, MRAB wrote:
> Ross wrote:
> > On May 5, 12:32 am, John Yeung wrote:
> >> On May 5, 1:12 am, John Yeung wrote:
>
> >>> [...] the problem may require bigger guns (either much better
> >>> math or much more sophisticated programming).
> >> Yes, I'm responding to myself.
>
> >> We
Ross wrote:
On May 5, 12:32 am, John Yeung wrote:
On May 5, 1:12 am, John Yeung wrote:
[...] the problem may require bigger guns (either much better
math or much more sophisticated programming).
Yes, I'm responding to myself.
Well, I went ahead with the approach I mentioned earlier, genera
On May 5, 12:32 am, John Yeung wrote:
> On May 5, 1:12 am, John Yeung wrote:
>
> > [...] the problem may require bigger guns (either much better
> > math or much more sophisticated programming).
>
> Yes, I'm responding to myself.
>
> Well, I went ahead with the approach I mentioned earlier, gener
On May 5, 1:12 am, John Yeung wrote:
> [...] the problem may require bigger guns (either much better
> math or much more sophisticated programming).
Yes, I'm responding to myself.
Well, I went ahead with the approach I mentioned earlier, generating
all possible matches and then selecting among
On May 4, 11:01 pm, Ross wrote:
> Anyways, I'm new to
> programming and this has been a good learning experience.
I'm glad that you've been trying, and seem to be sticking it out
despite sometimes getting negative feedback here.
> Next time around, I'll be sure to thoroughly comment
> my code be
On May 4, 7:33 pm, John Yeung wrote:
> On May 4, 8:56 pm, Ross wrote:
>
> > Anyways, you're right that seq[0] is always evaluated.
> > That's why my algorithm works fine when there are odd
> > numbers of players in a league.
>
> It doesn't work fine for all odd numbers of players. For example, 1
On May 4, 8:56 pm, Ross wrote:
> Anyways, you're right that seq[0] is always evaluated.
> That's why my algorithm works fine when there are odd
> numbers of players in a league.
It doesn't work fine for all odd numbers of players. For example, 15
players on 3 courts should result in 5 byes. Bu
On May 4, 7:59 pm, John Yeung wrote:
> On May 4, 10:01 am, Ross wrote:
>
> > The "magic numbers" that everyone is wondering about are
> > indeed used for spreading out the bye selection and I got
> > them by simply calculating a line of best fit when plotting
> > several courts: byes ratios.
>
>
On May 4, 10:01 am, Ross wrote:
> The "magic numbers" that everyone is wondering about are
> indeed used for spreading out the bye selection and I got
> them by simply calculating a line of best fit when plotting
> several courts: byes ratios.
But that doesn't really help you. When you do seq[::
On May 4, 12:15 pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> In article <8d4ec1df-dddb-469a-99a1-695152db7...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Ross wrote:
>
> >def test_round_robin(players, rounds, courts, doubles = False):
> > players = range(players)
> > for week in round_robin(players,round
In article <8d4ec1df-dddb-469a-99a1-695152db7...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Ross wrote:
>
>def test_round_robin(players, rounds, courts, doubles = False):
>players = range(players)
>for week in round_robin(players,rounds,courts):
> if doubles == True:
> doub
On May 3, 8:29 pm, John Machin wrote:
> On May 4, 12:36 pm, Ross wrote:
>
>
>
> > For the past couple weeks, I've been working on an algorithm to
> > schedule tennis leagues given court constraints and league
> > considerations (i.e. whether it's a singles or a doubles league). Here
> > were my r
On May 3, 10:16 pm, John Yeung wrote:
> On May 3, 11:29 pm, Chris Rebert wrote:
>
> > Probably not the cause of the problem, but where
> > did the magic numbers 1.072 and 1.08 come from?
>
> It is perhaps not the most direct cause of the problem, in the sense
> that the magic numbers could take v
On May 4, 7:01 am, Ross wrote:
> On May 3, 10:16 pm, John Yeung wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 11:29 pm, Chris Rebert wrote:
>
> > > Probably not the cause of the problem, but where
> > > did the magic numbers 1.072 and 1.08 come from?
>
> > It is perhaps not the most direct cause of the problem, in
On May 3, 11:29 pm, Chris Rebert wrote:
> Probably not the cause of the problem, but where
> did the magic numbers 1.072 and 1.08 come from?
It is perhaps not the most direct cause of the problem, in the sense
that the magic numbers could take various values and the problem would
still be there.
On May 3, 10:36 pm, Ross wrote:
> def round_robin(players, rounds):
[snip]
>
> def test_round_robin(players, rounds, courts, doubles = False):
> players = range(players)
> for week in round_robin(players,rounds,courts):
[snip]
First things first: I take it the call to round_robin is on
On May 4, 12:36 pm, Ross wrote:
> For the past couple weeks, I've been working on an algorithm to
> schedule tennis leagues given court constraints and league
> considerations (i.e. whether it's a singles or a doubles league). Here
> were my requirements when I was designing this algorithm:
>
> -E
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Ross wrote:
> For the past couple weeks, I've been working on an algorithm to
> schedule tennis leagues given court constraints and league
> considerations (i.e. whether it's a singles or a doubles league). Here
> were my requirements when I was designing this algor
For the past couple weeks, I've been working on an algorithm to
schedule tennis leagues given court constraints and league
considerations (i.e. whether it's a singles or a doubles league). Here
were my requirements when I was designing this algorithm:
-Each player plays against a unique opponent e
32 matches
Mail list logo
