|
|
|
The simplest one I caught from the link is one walks through all points and comes back to starting point, which is different from group trip involving share factor. If constraints can be applied, as in current topic such that Dx+Dy>Dz (always true for the same level stops), the shared stop will be preferred in the very first step. The we have to deal with the second step as in the algorithm (have not thought about the 2nd step so far, maybe not so hard as being scared). Forget how complicated the real problems may be. Now something in common reminds me of the N Card problem. One is the problem itself how to place all cards back in sequence together efficiently. My feel is that we can still take the greedy choice (this has to consider both cost and potential benefit) for each step (even for group sharing factor involved). The second common is the N Card problem is much like the opposite problem of group trip, after 2 people reach their end points 1 and 4, how they come back to the start point 1234 efficiently, that is, one person waits somewhere for the other person in order to share path to come back together to the start point (compare to the 5 cards problem, can not always perform in the same way such as 4 to 5, 3 to 4/5, 2 to 3/4/5, and finally 1 to 2/3/4/5, individually). Anyway, cooperative greedy choice for each step in group trip is an interesting attempt. Compared to all path links, for each step one only considers all the direct next paths to evaluate the whole group cost and benefits). Particularly for larger N levels group trip, this will avoid all unnecessary cross joins as in sql for only one step. |
|