I'm trying to optimize a pick and place problem based on the previous robot positions.
Let's assume that all the positions, which represents working stations, are numbered from 0 to 5 and there's a SCARA robot between them. Every position does need some fixed time to process that piece and the piece must go to all stations before we can call it done . A PLC controls all of this process so it knows when a piece is ready somewhere inside one of these stations and sends the robot there to pick it. It is also important to know that stations 2,3,4 do the same process so a part must go either to station 2, 3 or 4 and then to station 5. So the first part comes to position 0 (position 0 generates parts), the robot picks that part and places it to position 1. After a fixed time the robot takes that part and moves it to station 2. Now the position 1 is empty so the robot takes a part from position 0 and puts it into position 1. Every movement of the robot takes a small time but not 0, which affects the whole process cycle time. I'm trying to include that robot movement time into the parts processing time so when a piece is ready inside a station, the robot should be right there ready to pick it and place it somewhere else.
A real experiment based on 5 stations numbered 0 to 5 gives the following order of the positions:
0-1, 1-2, 0-1, 2-5, 1-2, 0-1, 1-3, 0-1, 2-5, 1-2, 0-1, 1-3 ...
The positions can be grouped because once a part is picked (the digit before '-') i know where it will be placed (the digit after) .
How can I estimate the next picking point so that the robot can move itself there before the plc tells it to ?
I don't know if your robot has any resources for this... If it doesn't, you can probably do it on your PLC.
Since the time of your process in each station is fixed, I'm thinking of using 5 or 6 separate timers, one for each station. Once the robot leaves the part in place you could start the specific timer for that station. When the robot is idle, it consults the remaining time of each one and goes to the one with the shortest time to complete.
This could be improved if you have a way to calculate (or look up in a list) the travel time from the current point to the station that is about to end... for example, the robot is at station 0 and station 1 is at 1.0 s from finishing and station 5 is 0.99999s from finishing... it would probably be more efficient to go to position 1 (closer) instead of going to position 5 (far).
Obviously this won't work if you don't know how long the part will take to be available at one of the stations, but in that case if you use a buffer to calculate the average waiting time of a part at a station (in which case you would have a sensor or something to check), you could estimate that the part is about to be ready using timers as well.
Related
I'm creating probability assistant for Battleship game - in essence, for given game state (field state and available ships), it would produce field where all free cells will have probability of hit.
My current approach is to do a monte-carlo like computation - get random free cell, get random ship, get random ship rotation, check if this placement is valid, if so continue with next ship from available set. If available set is empty, add how the ships were set to output stack. Redo this multiple times, use outputs to compute probability of each cell.
Is there sane algorithm to process all possible ship placements for given field state?
An exact solution is possible. But does not qualify as sane in my books.
Still, here is the idea.
There are many variants of the game, but let's say that we start with a worst case scenario of 1 ship of size 5, 2 of size 4, 3 of size 3 and 4 of size 2.
The "discovered state" of the board is all spots where shots have been taken, or ships have been discovered, plus the number of remaining ships. The discovered state naively requires 100 bits for the board (10x10, any can be shot) plus 1 bit for the count of remaining ships of size 5, 2 bits for the remaining ships of size 4, 2 bits for remaining ships of size 3 and 3 bits for remaining ships of size 2. This makes 108 bits, which fits in 14 bytes.
Now conceptually the idea is to figure out the map by shooting each square in turn in the first row, the second row, and so on, and recording the game state along with transitions. We can record the forward transitions and counts to find how many ways there are to get to any state.
Then find the end state of everything finished and all ships used and walk the transitions backwards to find how many ways there are to get from any state to the end state.
Now walk the data structure forward, knowing the probability of arriving at any state while on the way to the end, but this time we can figure out the probability of each way of finding a ship on each square as we go forward. Sum those and we have our probability heatmap.
Is this doable? In memory, no. In a distributed system it might be though.
Remember that I said that recording a state took 14 bytes? Adding a count to that takes another 8 bytes which takes us to 22 bytes. Adding the reverse count takes us to 30 bytes. My back of the envelope estimate is that at any point in our path there are on the order of a half-billion states we might be in with various ships left, killed ships sticking out and so on. That's 15 GB of data. Potentially for each of 100 squares. Which is 1.5 terabytes of data. Which we have to process in 3 passes.
I have a problem where I have a road that has multiple entry points and exits. I am trying to model it so that traffic can flow into an entry and go out the exit. The entry points also act as exits. All the entrypoints are labelled 1 to 10 (i.e. we have 10 entry and exits).
A car is allowed to enter and exit at any point however the entry is always lower number than the exit. For example a car enters at 3 and goes to 8, it cannot go from 3 to 3 or from 8 to 3.
After every second the car moves one unit on the road. So from above example the car goes from 3 to 4 after one second. I want to continuously accept cars at different entrypoints and update their positions after each second. However I cannot accept a car at an entry if there is already one present at that location.
All cars are travelling at the same speed of 1 unit per second and all are same size and occupy just the space at the point they are in. Once a car reaches its destination, its removed from the road.
For all new cars that come into the entrypoint and are waiting, we need to assign a waiting time. How would that work? For example it needs to account for when it is able to find a slot where it can be put on the road.
Is there an algorithm that this problem fits into?
What data structure would I model this in - for example for each entrypoints, I was thinking something like a queue or like an ordered map and for the road, maybe a linkedlist?
Outside of a top down master algorithm that decides what each car does and when, there is another approach that uses agents that interact with their environment and amongst themselves, with a limited set of simple rules. This often give rise to complex behaviors: You could maybe code simple rules into car objects, to define these interactions?
Maybe something like this:
emerging behavior algorithm:
a car moves forward if there are no cars just in front of it.
a car merges into a lane if there are no car right on its side (and
maybe behind that slot too)
a car progresses towards its destination, and removes itself when destination is reached.
proposed data structure
The data structure could be an indexed collection of "slots" along which a car moves towards a destination.
Two data structures could intersect at a tuple of index values for each.
Roads with 2 or more lanes could be modeled with coupled data structures...
optimial numbers
Determining the max road use, and min time to destination would require running the simulation several times, with varying parameters of the number of cars, and maybe variations of the rules.
A more elaborate approach would us continuous space on the road, instead of discrete slots.
I can suggest a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) which will store each entry point as a node.
The problem of moving from one point to another can be thought of as a graph-flow problem, which has a number of algorithms for determining movement in a graph.
This is my first post on Stack Overflow, so please excuse my mistakes if I'm doing something wrong.
Ok so I'm trying to find an algorithm/function/something that can calculate how many times I have to do the same type of shuffle of 52 playing cards to get back to where I started.
The specific shuffle I'm using goes like this:
-You will have two piles.
-You have the deck with the back facing up. (Lets call this pile 1)
-You will now alternate between putting a card in the back of pile 1 Example: Let's say you have 4 cards in a pile, back facing up, going from 4 closest to the ground and 1 closest to the sky (Their order is 4,3,2,1. You take card 1 and put it beneath card 4 mening card 1 is now closest to the ground and card 4 is second closest, order is now 1,4,3,2. and putting one in pile 2. -Pile 2 will "stack downwards" meaning you will always put the new card at the bottom of that pile. (Back always facing up)
-The first card will always get put at the back of pile 1.
-Repeat this process until all cards are in pile 2.
-Now take pile 2 and do the exact same thing you just did.
My question is: How many times do I have to repeat this process until I get back where I started?
Side notes:
- If this is a common way of shuffling cards and there already is a solution, please let me know.
- I'm still new to math and coding so if writing up an equation/algorithm/code for this is really easy then don't laugh at me pls ;<.
- Sorry if I'm asking this at the wrong place, I don't know how all this works.
- English isn't my main language and I'm not a native speaker either so please excuse any bad grammar and/or other grammatical errors.
I do however have a code that does all of this (Link here) but I'm unsure if it's the most effective way to do it, and it hasn't given a result yet so I don't even know if it works. If you wan't to give tips or suggestions on how to change it then please do, I would really appreciate it. It's done in scratch however because I can't write in any other languages... sorry...
Thanks in advance.
Any fixed shuffle is equivalent to a permutation; what you want to know is the order of that permutation. This can be computed by decomposing the permutation into cycles and then computing the least common multiple of the cycle lengths.
I'm not able to properly understand your algorithm, but here's an example of shuffling 8 elements and then finding the number of times that shuffle needs to be repeated to get back to an unshuffled state.
Suppose the sequence starts as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and after one shuffle, it's 3,1,4,5,2,8,7,6.
The number 1 goes to position 2, then 2 goes to position 5, then 5 goes to position 4, then 4 goes to position 3, then 3 goes to position 1. So the first cycle is (1 2 5 4 3).
The number 6 goes to position 8, then 8 goes to position 6. So the next cycle is (6 8).
The number 7 stays in position 7, so this is a trivial cycle (7).
The lengths of the cycles are 5, 2 and 1, so the least common multiple is 10. This shuffle takes 10 iterations to get back to the intitial state.
If you don't mind sitting down with pen and paper for a while, you should be able to follow this procedure for your own shuffling algorithm.
I am constructing a racing simulator and need help with ideas on how to construct the formula.
Each race have eight competitors, each and everyone of these are designated a starting track. Track 1 is considered the best, track 2 the next best and so on.
However if a racer has a low value in acceleration and given starting track 1; this is a clear disadvantage as there is a overwhelming risk that he might be trapped and not able to finish in a strong position.
If the racer at track 1 has an average value of acceleration he is still at a disadvantage if the racer at track 2 possesses a higher value.
The participant at track 8 needs to be pretty much faster than all the other competitors to reach the lead.
Does anyone have ideas on how I would go about to construct a formula like this? I'm basically looking for the way to think and I gladly appreciate all the input I get
If i understand you right, i might formulate it something like this.
A racing car has an acceleration value and a starting position (track?). Every race consists of a certain amount of laps on a track, where the track has a certain length.
At the end of the simulation each car finishes with a certain time in which it completed all necessary laps. I would propose to just offset each car a certain time, depending on their starting position. For example, position 1 offset +0s, position 2 offset +2s, position 3 offset +4s.
I would also introduce some sort of 'end speed' or 'total speed' for each type of car, so that you can just calculate the time with acceleration, total speed and number of laps times the total lenght of the track.
Edit: This question is not a duplicate of What is the optimal algorithm for the game 2048?
That question asks 'what is the best way to win the game?'
This question asks 'how can we work out the complexity of the game?'
They are completely different questions. I'm not interested in which steps are required to move towards a 'win' state - I'm interested in in finding out whether the total number of possible steps can be calculated.
I've been reading this question about the game 2048 which discusses strategies for creating an algorithm that will perform well playing the game.
The accepted answer mentions that:
the game is a discrete state space, perfect information, turn-based game like chess
which got me thinking about its complexity. For deterministic games like chess, its possible (in theory) to work out all the possible moves that lead to a win state and work backwards, selecting the best moves that keep leading towards that outcome. I know this leads to a large number of possible moves (something in the range of the number of atoms in the universe).. but is 2048 more or less complex?
Psudocode:
for the current arrangement of tiles
- work out the possible moves
- work out what the board will look like if the program adds a 2 to the board
- work out what the board will look like if the program adds a 4 to the board
- move on to working out the possible moves for the new state
At this point I'm thinking I will be here a while waiting on this to run...
So my question is - how would I begin to write this algorithm - what strategy is best for calculating the complexity of the game?
The big difference I see between 2048 and chess is that the program can select randomly between 2 and 4 when adding new tiles - which seems add a massive number of additional possible moves.
Ultimately I'd like the program to output a single figure showing the number of possible permutations in the game. Is this possible?!
Let's determine how many possible board configurations there are.
Each tile can be either empty, or contain a 2, 4, 8, ..., 512 or 1024 tile.
That's 12 possibilities per tile. There are 16 tiles, so we get 1612 = 248 possible board states - and this most likely includes a few unreachable ones.
Assuming we could store all of these in memory, we could work backwards from all board states that would generate a 2048 tile in the next move, doing a constant amount of work to link reachable board states to each other, which should give us a probabilistic best move for each state.
To store all bits in memory, let's say we'd need 4 bits per tile, i.e. 64 bits = 8 bytes per board state.
248 board states would then require 8*248 = 2251799813685248 bytes = 2048 TB (not to mention added overhead to keep track of the best boards). That's a bit beyond what a desktop computer these days has, although it might be possible to cleverly limit the number of boards required at any given time as to get down to something that will fit on, say, a 3 TB hard drive, or perhaps even in RAM.
For reference, chess has an upper bound of 2155 possible positions.
If we were to actually calculate, from the start, every possible move (in a breadth-first search-like manner), we'd get a massive number.
This isn't the exact number, but rather a rough estimate of the upper bound.
Let's make a few assumptions: (which definitely aren't always true, but, for the sake of simplicity)
There are always 15 open squares
You always have 4 moves (left, right, up, down)
Once the total sum of all tiles on the board reaches 2048, it will take the minimum number of combinations to get a single 2048 (so, if placing a 2 makes the sum 2048, the combinations will be 2 -> 4 -> 8 -> 16 -> ... -> 2048, i.e. taking 10 moves)
A 2 will always get placed, never a 4 - the algorithm won't assume this, but, for the sake of calculating the upper bound, we will.
We won't consider the fact that there may be duplicate boards generated during this process.
To reach 2048, there needs to be 2048 / 2 = 1024 tiles placed.
You start with 2 randomly placed tiles, then repeatedly make a move and another tile gets placed, so there's about 1022 'turns' (a turn consisting of making a move and a tile getting placed) until we get a sum of 2048, then there's another 10 turns to get a 2048 tile.
In each turn, we have 4 moves, and there can be one of two tiles placed in one of 15 positions (30 possibilities), so that's 4*30 = 120 possibilities.
This would, in total, give us 1201032 possible states.
If we instead assume a 4 will always get placed, we get 120519 states.
Calculating the exact number will likely involve working our way through all these states, which won't really be viable.