Loading in 3 Seconds
On Optimal Solutions for the Bottleneck Tower of Hanoi Problem . Yefim Dinitz Shay Solomon Dept. of Comp. Sci., Ben-Gurion University ISRAEL. Contents of the lecture. 1. Background on the Tower of Hanoi. 2. The Bottleneck Tower of Hanoi (BTH) problem.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
On Optimal Solutions for the Bottleneck Tower of Hanoi Problem
Yefim Dinitz Shay Solomon
Dept. of Comp. Sci., Ben-Gurion University
ISRAEL
1. Background on the Tower of Hanoi.
2. The Bottleneck Tower of Hanoi (BTH) problem.
3. The family of all optimal solutions to BTH.
4. Investigation of the configuration graph of
BTH: its diameter and average distance.
- Given are 3 pegs, denoted by A,B and C, and ndisks of distinct sizes placed on peg A in decreasing order, largest at the bottom to the smallest at the top.
- The goal of the puzzle is to transfer all disksto peg C, placed in the same order, by the minimum possible number of moves.
- The rules are to move a single disk from (the top of) one peg to (the top of) another one at each step, following the "divine rule": to never have a larger disk above a smaller one.
Move number
Example for general n
1
2
…
…
…
n-1
n
A B C
Move number
Cn-1
The optimal transfer for general n
1
2
…
…
…
n-1
n
A B C
Move number
Cn-1 + 1
The optimal transfer for general n
1
2
…
…
…
n-1
n
A B C
Move number
2 Cn-1 + 1
The optimal transfer for general n
1
2
…
…
…
n-1
n
A B C
The recurrence formula is
cn = 2cn-1 + 1, c1 = 1.
Hence,cn = 2^n -1.
This classical Tower of Hanoi problem with three pegs is a basic problem, taught as a basic example of a recursion program.
There is a great proliferation of new ToH puzzles posed over the last twenty years.
There is a bibliography made by Paul Stockmeyer, which covers over 350
papers on the subject.
2. The Bottleneck ToH problem
In 1981, D. Wood posed the following generalization of ToH, which we call the
“Bottleneck Tower of Hanoi Problem, BTHn= BTHn,k”,
depending on an integer parameter k, k>0.
The k-relaxed Placement Rule:Besides the usual placement of smaller disks above bigger ones, a bigger disk j may be placed above a smaller disk i, if their size difference j - i < k.
i+k
….
….
i
Definitions
1
2
3
…
…
n-2
n-1
n
(Note that if k=1, we arrive at the classical problem.)
Example: k=4, n=7
We note that there are many legal towers for a given k.
As k grows, there are morelegal towers.
1
2
3
7
6
5
4
(The two extreme) examples:
k=1, one legal tower (perfect tower).
k≥n, n!possible towers.
Legal
1.(*) Move disks [1..(n-1)] from A,
by the minimum possible number of moves, to any (legal) state on B.
2. Move disk n from A to C.
3.(*) Move disks [1..(n-1)] from B to the perfect tower on C, by the minimum possible number of moves.
1
2
3
4
….
….
….
….
….
n-1
n
B
C
A
[1..n-1]
n
B
C
A
[1..n-1]
n
B
C
A
1
2
3
4
….
….
….
….
….
n-1
n
B
C
A
1.Recursively perform βm-k(source,auxiliary).
2. Move k disks [(m-k+1)..m] one by one fromsource to target.
3. Recursively perform βm-k(auxiliary,target).
K=4, m=7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
source auxiliary target
4
5
6
7
3
2
1
source auxiliary target
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
source auxiliary target
1
2
3
7
6
5
4
source auxiliary target
K=4, m=11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
source auxiliary target
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
7
6
5
4
source auxiliary target
11
10
9
8
1
2
3
7
6
5
4
source auxiliary target
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
10
9
8
source auxiliary target
(**) We remark that, if we start with the perfect tower on A, and perform βm(A,B)followed byβm(B,C), the result is the perfect tower on C.
1. perform βn-1(A,B).
2. Move disk n from A to C.
3. perform βn-1(B,C).
By earlier remark (**), αnsolves BTHn.
1
2
3
4
….
….
….
….
….
n-1
n
B
C
A
1
2
3
….
….
n-k-1
n-1
….
n-k+1
n-k
n
B
C
A
1
2
3
….
….
n-k-1
n-1
….
n-k+1
n-k
n
B
C
A
1
2
3
4
….
….
….
….
….
n-1
n
B
C
A
bm = r (2^q) + k (2^q -1),
where m = qk +r.
an = r (2^(q+1)) + k (2^(q+1) -2) + 1,
where n-1=qk + r.
We provethat, in any optimal solution toBTHn, disk n makes only one move, from peg A to C.
Before that move, all disks 1,…,n-1 have been moved from peg A to peg B.
After that move, all disks 1,..,n-1 willmove from peg B to peg C.
Is αn the unique optimal solution?
In the casek=1, the answer is yes (and is well known): there exists a unique solution for the classical problem.
For the case k ≥ 2, the answer is
No!
Let us see a different sequence of moves, of the same length as that of αn:
Example n=10, k=3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A B C
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3
2
1
A B C
7
8
9
10
3
2
1
6
5
4
A B C
1
2
3
6
5
4
7
8
9
10
A B C
1
2
3
6
5
4
9
8
7
10
A B C
Until this point, the move-sequence is the same asαn
6
5
4
3
2
1
10
9
8
7
A B C
5
4
3
6
9
8
7
2
1
10
A B C
2
5
3
6
9
8
7
4
1
10
A B C
1
4
2
5
3
6
9
8
7
10
A B C
1
4
2
5
3
6
9
8
7
10
A B C
9
8
7
3
2
1
10
6
5
4
A B C
9
8
7
1
2
3
6
5
4
10
A B C
1
2
3
6
5
4
7
8
9
10
A B C
6
5
4
7
8
9
10
3
2
1
A B C
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3
2
1
A B C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A B C
- αnis a shortest perfect-to-perfect tower-move of n disks.
- βmis a shortest “somehow” tower-move
of m disks.
How many optimal solutions exist?
An auxiliary problemequivalent to (**):Let n ≤ t+p.What is the number of integer solutions that satisfy the two following conditions:
How many such configurations exist?
The number of different solutions to (**) is:
C(n+t,t) – C(n+t,t+p+1)
The number of all optimal solutions toBTHn is:
k=1:
A unique optimal solution
k ≥ 2:
(C(k+r,k)-C(k+r,k+1))^[┌2^(┌(n-1)/k┐-2)┐-1],
where r= (n-1) mod k.
Questions :
1. Find a pair of disk arrangements over A,B and C, requiring the longest sequence of moves in order to get from one to the other.
2. Find the length of that sequence (later referred as “diameter”).
Let us translate these questions to the language of graphs:
The configuration graph for the case n=2,k=2
(),(2),(1)
(),(2,1),()
(),(),(1,2)
(1,2),(),()
(2),(),(1)
(2,1),(),()
(),(),(2,1)
(2),(1),()
(1),(),(2)
(),(1),(2)
(),(1,2),()
(1),(2),()
The diameter is 4
(),(2),(1)
(),(2,1),()
(),(),(1,2)
(1,2),(),()
(2),(),(1)
(2,1),(),()
(),(),(2,1)
(2),(1),()
(1),(),(2)
(),(1),(2)
(),(1,2),()
(1),(2),()
We found the answer for the second question, i.e. the diameter, D(n,k),up to a constant factor.
D(n,k) =Θ((k^2)∙2^(n/k))
This is k times the shortest length of
a perfect-to-perfect tower-move.
Reminder: an = Θ(k ∙2^(n/k))
D(n,k) = Θ(n∙logn).
D(n,k) = Θ(n∙logn + (n-k)^2).
D(n,k) = Θ((k^2)∙2^(n/k)).
We believe (based on similar open questions raised by D. Knuth) that both afore-mentioned questions:
1. Finding a pair of disk arrangements requiring a longest sequence of moves.
2. Finding the length of that sequence (i.e, the previously mentioned diameter) exactly.
should be difficult even for the (degenerate) case n≤k.
We find the average number of moves required to get from one configuration to another, taken over all pairs of configurations, up to a constant factor.
In other words, we bound the average distance between nodes in the configuration graph of BTHn.
We prove that the average,Avg(n,k), is asymptotically the same as the afore-mentioned diameter.
For n ≥ 3k:
Avg(n,k) = Θ(D(n,k)) =Θ((k^2)∙2^(n/k))
This is k times the shortest length of a
p.t.p. tower-move.
Avg(n,k) = Θ(D(n,k)) = Θ(nlogn).
Avg(n,k) = Θ(D(n,k)) = Θ((k^2)∙2^(n/k)).
In our paper at ISAAC’06, we considered optimal algorithms for ToH problems with generalized placement rules.
We appreciate your attention.
Upper bound: We show an explicit way to transfer any tower of n disks in O((k^2)∙2^(n/k)) moves.
As we know, each one of those tower-moves requires Ω(k∙2^((n-2k)/k))moves.