Talk:God's algorithm

message: But you must take our "knowledege" of these known algorithms to create the God's algorithm. really god's algorithm is the least number of moves to solve a Puzzle from any state. we already in theory can say that the cube can always be solve in Sub20 moves using a 2phrase algorithm, but gods algorithm is a test of all possible moves from any given state. lets say we use god's algorithm, we still have to test every other set of moves from 20 to 19 and so on untill we can asume we have found the shortest algorithm. so even knowing the meaning or use of "God's algorithm" this set of algoithms would still take years to find the best solution for all possible scrambles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.48.44 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: Although the notion of "practicality" for algorithms makes a useful distinction, it is not common in computer science.  Algorithms are required to be finite on any input.  As Rubik's Cube and similar puzzles have a finite set of states, there are no problems in the puzzle that can not be answered by algorithms.  In fact, we know God's algorithm, because we know algorithms that solve the shortest-path algorithm in any finite graph.  What we do not know is the result of running the algorithm on the Rubik's Cube puzzle.  This is a subtle but important distinction.
The article is quite imprecise and not well-sourced. 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On algorithms 

message: relevance of Towers of Hanoi  could be explained a bit. There is one specific and well known solution, and *any* other solution would be a  less efficient solution ,and could be reduced to the one true solution by removal of  "incorrect move- reverse  incorrect move" pairs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.33.210 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towers of Hanoi and Gods algorithm 

message: Would it be interesting, or not, to give God's algorithm in some of the simplest cases? e.g., for the Tower of Hanoi it can be formulated as: UNTIL solved DO: IF disk(last_move) != smallest THEN move(disk = smallest, direction = one_further_clockwise) ELSE move(disk = other_than_smallest, destination = only_possible_choice) END_IF END_DO. — MFH:Talk 14:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not only unsourced, it is incorrect.  It will only work for an even number of discs, not an odd number (depending on what you mean by clockwise).  And to answer your actual question, no I don't think it would benefit this article to give algorithms.  Several are already given on the Tower of Hanoi page which is a mote suiteable place for them. SpinningSpark 13:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give algorithms in simple cases? 

message: Under unsolved games, it is stated that the solution to Towers of Hanoi is NP-hard, but the given citation makes no reference to the optimal solution being NP-hard, only that it is O(2^n). Which is only sufficient to prove that it is not NP. 128.187.116.8 (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. SpinningSpark 17:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NP-hardness of Towers of Hanoi 

message: It seems obvious to me that throughout the article, it is assumed that God's algorithms should be possible to run within a practical length of time. For example, it is mentioned that God's algorithm for chess is not known. However, I can easily produce an algorithm which is guaranteed to always produce a perfect move since the game tree is finite (min-max algorithm with no depth limit). Only problem is the running time, which would be longer than the lifetime of the universe.
This should be reflected in the article somehow. 94.44.252.205 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practicality