Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 81
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I don't understand what we're talking about at all. FF calls are counted in its library by a special function.
This is also where the file writing function is located.
If in the first call of the library with the FF, pass there (in a special function) the name of the participant, then this function will enter the name of the participant in the name of his file with the result.
There, in the file will be the number of FF calls.
The script will satisfy all requests in this case.
I have developed the following concept:
1. A library is created with FF and a set of standard functions, among which - counting calls, composing result file name, writing result and number of calls to the FF to the file.
2. The referee compiles the FF formula and puts it into the FF function. Compiles the library with the FF.
3. The compiled library with the FF is given to all participants.
4. Participants import library functions, solve the problem and compile their scripts.
5. Participants upload their scripts to the forum by a certain date.
6. After that participants download each other's scripts and check them in their terminals. They look at the result files, created at the launch of the compiled library scripts with the FF, and see and compare their own and others' results.
7. In this way, a winner is automatically revealed.
The only need is a referee, to compile the FF formula and sew it into the function, and compile the final library.
It's much easier, isn't it? )
I have developed the following concept:
1. A library is created with FF and a set of standard functions, among which - counting calls, composing result file name, writing result and number of calls to the FF to the file.
2. The referee compiles the FF formula and writes it into the FF function. Compiles the library with the FF.
3. The compiled FF library is distributed to all participants.
4. Participants import library functions, solve the problem and compile their scripts.
5. Participants upload their scripts to the forum by a certain date.
6. After that, participants download each other's scripts and check them in their terminals. They look at the result files, created at the launch of the compiled library scripts with the FF, and see and compare their own and others' results.
7. In this way, a winner is automatically revealed.
The only need is a referee, to compile the FF formula and sew it into the function, and compile the final library.
It's much easier, isn't it? )
NO.
It was easier before, it will be harder now. Previously, it was agreed that FF will be calculated in the range [-10.0;10.0] in increments of 0.1. Participants were required to build these restrictions into their algorithms for protection purposes, so that no third parties could use them in their tasks, and then, at the start of the Championship, to post the compiled library of algorithms. The checking script should have called the contestant's library, which works independently with FF. Everything was simple and transparent, the purity of the experiment and the interests of participants to protect the intellectual property. But no, a wave of indignation arose, such as "but why was this range chosen? Why with this particular step? - I lucidly explained that the range and pitch do not matter, they can be chosen any way for the championship, and they are fixed and known in advance only in order to limit the applicability of the participants algorithms in real tasks by third parties, but the public was not satisfied with my explanation. Ok, I said, remove all restrictions on the range and step, but then you can no longer put libraries of participants in the public domain, as there are no restrictions on use, and this means no protection. So now a jury is needed to accept the algorithms of the contestants and conduct tests.
Now you can't put participants' algorithms in the public domain, because the championship task will have no restrictions in the range of parameters and steps! And all this at your mercy.
OK, in that case the solution should be in the library. But perhaps there is an option where there is no need for a jury. Like we didn't need a jury to determine the best solution in the text problem.
No one has defined anything. Neither you nor I posted algorithms to check, it's all just words.
The only thing -Event showed its algorithm with the ability to check it, but in fact it turned out to be not an optimization algorithm at all, but a cleverly tailored complete overshoot.
I intentionally showed the source code of the task with the text, so that the participants could see how calls of the main functions are performed. But instead of taking it into account and creating the same interface for the championship, you andEvent didn't fail to use the knowledge of the task's contents to solve it straightforwardly. Well, that's not going to work for the championship task. There will be a real check of algorithms and such machinations with FF will not work, as well as your suggestion of "algorithm in a script".
No one has defined anything. Neither you nor I posted algorithms to check, it's all just words.
The only thing -Event showed its algorithm with the ability to check it, but in fact it turned out to be not an optimization algorithm at all, but a cleverly tailored complete overshoot.
I intentionally showed the source code of the task with the text, so that the participants could see how calls of the main functions are performed. But instead of taking it into account and creating the same interface for the championship, you andEvent didn't fail to use the knowledge of the task's contents to solve it straightforwardly. Well, that's not going to work for the championship task. There will be a real check of algorithms and such machinations with FF will not work, as well as your suggestion about "algorithm in a script".
So you think I cheated?
You had exactly the same conditions as me and Event. I said I could post the compiled script. (Post it?)
You, as a participant of the contest on solving the word-problem, must post your version. You haven't posted it and didn't even tell me your results. Although, I lie - your results of solving the problem with the text you said at the beginning, and me and Event beat you by more than 20 times the result. I turned a blind eye to it. Well, I think - a man creates universal algorithms, and such tasks are not serious for him...
(Although it is strange - a universal algorithm, which, due to its universality, loses in effectiveness to non-universal algorithms. Something is wrong here...)
And what does content knowledge have to do with it? You can change the string to any other string.
NO.
It was easier before, now it will be more complicated. Previously, it was agreed that the FF will be calculated in the range [-10.0;10.0] in increments of 0.1, participants were required to build these restrictions into their algorithms for protection purposes to prevent third parties from using them in their tasks, and then, at the start of the Championship, to post the compiled library algorithms. The checking script should have called the contestant's library, which works independently with FF. Everything was simple and transparent, the purity of the experiment and the interests of participants to protect the intellectual property. But no, a wave of indignation arose, such as "but why was this range chosen? Why with this particular step? - I lucidly explained that the range and pitch do not matter, they can be chosen any way for the championship, and the fixed and known in advance they are only to limit the applicability of the participants algorithms in real problems by third parties, but the public was not satisfied with my explanation. Ok, I said, remove all restrictions on the range and step, but then you can no longer put libraries of participants in the public domain, as there are no restrictions on use, and this means no protection. So now a jury is needed to accept the algorithms of the contestants and conduct tests.
Now you can't put participants' algorithms in the public domain, because the championship task will have no restrictions in the range of parameters and steps! And all this at your mercy.
So you think I cheated?
You had exactly the same conditions as me and Event. I said I could post the compiled script. (Post it?)
You, as a contestant in the text problem solving competition, should have posted your version. You haven't posted it, and you haven't even told me your results. Although, I lie - your results of solving the problem with the text you said at the beginning, and me and Event beat you by more than 20 times the result. I turned a blind eye to it. Well, I think - a man creates universal algorithms, and such tasks are not serious for him...
(Although it is strange - a universal algorithm, which, due to its universality, loses in effectiveness to non-universal algorithms. Something is wrong here...)
And what does content knowledge have to do with it? You can change a string to any other string. It is impossible to create an algorithm without knowing the essence of the problem.
As usual, everything is mixed up and jumbled together.
Why on earth would I post my algorithm to a problem with text?! I didn't promise it, and I didn't demand it from others! This is an example connection, an interface! Use this interface to connect your library algorithm to the FF at the championship, then at the championship and we will talk about how and why and who achieved what and how!
I accept your terms of connection. As you wish. Let's compete. Let's challenge. Let's give a deadline and date for delivering the algorithm. I'll do it anyway.
Now, this is serious talk. As soon as we wait for the MQ representatives, we will start forming the FF for the championship. Without them, nothing will work, neither the FF nor the championship.
From the moment they appear, a period of preparation will have to be set aside.