I'm trying to solve an algorithm problem involving chess.
Suppose I have a king in A8 and want to move it to H1 (only with allowed moves).
How could I find out how many possibilities (paths) there is making exactly any given k moves?
(e.g. How many paths/possibilities there is if I want to move the king from A8 to H1 with 15 moves?)
One trivial solution is to see it as a graph problem and use any standard
path finding algorithm counting each move as having cost 1. So, let's say I want to move my king from A8 to H1 in 10 moves. I would simply search all paths which sum up to 10.
My question is, if there are other more clever and efficient ways of doing this?
I was also wondering, if there could be something more "mathematical" and straightforward to find this number and not so "algorithmic" and "brute-force-like"?
This is a straight-forward O(N^3) dynamic programming problem.
Simply assign a 3D array as follows:
Let Z[x][y][k] be the number of moves of k steps to reach the destination from position (x,y) on board.
The base cases are:
foreach x in 0 to 7,
foreach y in 0 to 7,
Z[x][y][0] = 0 // forall x,y: 0 ways to reach H1 from
// anywhere else with 0 steps
Z[7][7][0] = 1 // 1 way to reach H1 from H1 with 0 steps
The recursive case is:
foreach k in 1 to K,
foreach x in 0 to 7,
foreach y in 0 to 7,
Z[x][y][k+1] = Z[x-1][y][k]
+ Z[x+1][y][k]
+ Z[x][y-1][k]
+ Z[x][y+1][k]
+ ...; // only include positions in
// the summation that are on the board
// and that a king can make
Your answer is then:
return Z[0][0][K]; // number of ways to reach H1(7,7) from A8(0,0) with K moves
(There is a faster way to do this in O(n^2) by decomposing the moves into two sets of horizontal and vertical moves and then combining these and multiplying by the number of interleavings.)
See this related question and answer: No of ways to walk M steps in a grid
You could use an adjacency matrix. If you multiply such a matrix with itself, you get the amount of paths from Point to Point. Example:
Graph: complete K3 graph : A<->B<->C<->A
Matrix:
[0 ; 1 ; 1]
[1 ; 0 ; 1]
[1 ; 1 ; 0]
Paths for length 2: M * M
[2 ; 1 ; 1]
[1 ; 2 ; 1]
[1 ; 1 ; 2]
Length 3 would then be M * M * M
[2 ; 3 ; 3]
[3 ; 2 ; 3]
[3 ; 3 ; 2]
.......E <-end
........
........
........
........
........
........
S....... <-start
Unfortunately you can't use "any standard path finding algorithm" because your paths might not be shortest-paths. You'd have to specifically use a naive search which considered all paths (depth-first or breadth-first, for example).
However, because you don't care how you got to a tile, you can use a technique called dynamic programming. For every location (i,j), the number of ways to get there in n moves (let's call it waysi,j(n)) is:
waysi,j(n) = waysi-1,j(n-1) + waysi+1,j(n-1) + waysi,j-1(n-1) + waysi,j+1(n-1) + waysi+1,j+1(n-1) + waysi-1,j+1(n-1) + waysi+1,j-1(n-1) + waysi-1,j-1(n-1)
That is, the king can move from any of the adjacent squares in 1 move:
waysi,j(n) = sumneighbors(i,j)(waysneighbor(n-1))
Thus you'd do, for example in python:
SIZE = 8
cache = {}
def ways(pos, n):
r,c = pos # row,column
if not (0<=r<SIZE and 0<=c<SIZE):
# off edge of board: no ways to get here
return 0
elif n==0:
# starting position: only one way to get here
return 1 if (r,c)==(0,0) else 0
else:
args = (pos,n)
if not args in cache:
cache[args] = ways((r-1,c), n-1) + ways((r+1,c), n-1) + ways((r,c-1), n-1) + ways((r,c+1), n-1) + ways((r-1,c-1), n-1) + ways((r+1,c-1), n-1) + ways((r+1,c-1), n-1) + ways((r+1,c+1), n-1)
return cache[args]
Demo:
>>> ways((7,7), 15)
1074445298
The above technique is called memoization, and is simpler to write than dynamic programming, because you don't need to really think about the order in which you do things. You can see the cache grow as we perform a series of larger and larger queries:
>>> cache
{}
>>> ways((1,0), 1)
1
>>> cache
{((1, 0), 1): 1}
>>> ways((1,1), 2)
2
>>> cache
{((0, 1), 1): 1, ((1, 2), 1): 0, ((1, 0), 1): 1, ((0, 0), 1): 0, ((2, 0), 1): 0, ((2, 1), 1): 0, ((1, 1), 2): 2, ((2, 2), 1): 0}
>>> ways((2,1), 3)
5
>>> cache
{((1, 2), 1): 0, ((2, 3), 1): 0, ((2, 0), 2): 1, ((1, 1), 1): 1, ((3, 1), 1): 0, ((4, 0), 1): 0, ((1, 0), 1): 1, ((3, 0), 1): 0, ((0, 0), 1): 0, ((2, 0), 1): 0, ((2, 1), 1): 0, ((4, 1), 1): 0, ((2, 2), 2): 1, ((3, 3), 1): 0, ((0, 1), 1): 1, ((3, 0), 2): 0, ((3, 2), 2): 0, ((3, 2), 1): 0, ((1, 0), 2): 1, ((4, 2), 1): 0, ((4, 3), 1): 0, ((3, 1), 2): 0, ((1, 1), 2): 2, ((2, 2), 1): 0, ((2, 1), 3): 5}
(In python, can also use a #cached or #memoized decorator to avoid having to write the entire code in the last else: block. Other languages have other ways to automatically perform memoization.)
The above was a top-down approach. It can sometimes produce very large stacks (your stack will grow with n). If you want to be super-efficient to avoid unnecessary work, you can do a bottom-up approach, where you simulate all positions the king could be, for 1 step, 2 steps, 3 steps, ...:
SIZE = 8
def ways(n):
grid = [[0 for row in range(8)] for col in range(8)]
grid[0][0] = 1
def inGrid(r,c):
return all(0<=coord<SIZE for coord in (r,c))
def adjacentSum(pos, grid):
r,c = pos
total = 0
for neighbor in [(1,0),(1,1),(0,1),(-1,1),(-1,0),(-1,-1),(0,-1),(1,-1)]:
delta_r,delta_c = neighbor
(r2,c2) = (r+delta_r,c+delta_c)
if inGrid(r2,c2):
total += grid[r2][c2]
return total
for _ in range(n):
grid = [[adjacentSum((r,c), grid) for r in range(8)] for c in range(8)]
# careful: grid must be replaced atomically, not element-by-element
from pprint import pprint
pprint(grid)
return grid
Demo:
>>> ways(0)
[[1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]]
>>> ways(1)
[[0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]]
>>> ways(2)
[[3, 2, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[2, 2, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]]
>>> ways(3)
[[6, 11, 6, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[11, 16, 9, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[6, 9, 6, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[4, 5, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]]
>>> ways(4)
[[38, 48, 45, 20, 9, 0, 0, 0],
[48, 64, 60, 28, 12, 0, 0, 0],
[45, 60, 51, 24, 9, 0, 0, 0],
[20, 28, 24, 12, 4, 0, 0, 0],
[9, 12, 9, 4, 1, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]]
Related
I need to cover all the edges of a graph with the minimum number of paths. I read that the Eulerian path method is needed here. I tried to reproduce it, but it doesn't work correctly.
def split_graph(graph, n):
stack = []
path = []
some_list = []
for i in range(n):
some_list .append(sum(graph[i]))
cur = 0
while (len(stack) > 0 or sum(graph[cur]) != 0):
if (sum(graph[cur]) == 0):
path.append(cur+1)
cur = stack[-1]
del stack[-1]
else:
for i in range(n):
if (graph[cur][i] == 1):
stack.append(cur)
graph[cur][i] = 0
graph[i][cur] = 0
cur = i
print(path)
if __name__ == '__main__':
graph = [[0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0],
[1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1],
[0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0]]
n = len(graph)
split_graph(graph, n)
Required output (There may be several options, this is one of them):
[6, 7, 4, 1, 2, 3]
[2,4]
[7, 5]
My output:
[3, 5, 6, 1, 4, 2]
How can this be fixed?
Given an array of n numbers find all the ways of inserting + and - between them so that the result of the expression is positive.
I've found this problem recently and I thought it was interesting, but I'm not exactly sure how to solve it. I think I should try backtracking, no?
Any help or hints are deeply appreciated!
Edit: Would this be a correct solution? (I wrote it in python)
def outputSolution(list):
print(list)
def solution(x, dim):
return len(x) == dim-1
def consistent(list, array):
partial_sum = array[0]
for i in range(len(list)):
if list[i] == 0:
partial_sum = partial_sum - array[i+1]
if list[i] == 1:
partial_sum = partial_sum + array[i+1]
absolute_remaining_sum = 0
for i in range(len(list)+1, len(array)): #the remaining elements in array
absolute_remaining_sum =absolute_remaining_sum + abs(array[i])
if partial_sum + absolute_remaining_sum < 0:
return False
else:
return True
def solve(list, array):
"""
array - the array of n given integers
list - the candidate to a solution
"""
dim = len(array)
for el in range(2): # el = 0 or 1 (0 for - and 1 for +)
if len(list) < dim - 1:
list.append(el)
if consistent(list, array):
if solution(list, dim):
outputSolution(list)
solve(list[:], array)
list.pop()
solve([], array)
My thought process was that there are n-1 gaps between those numbers. Each gap can have a '+' or a '-' in it. And so I build a list where list[i] is equal with 0 if between array[i] and array[i+1] there is an "-", and list[i] is equal with 0 if between array[i] and array[i+1] there is an "+". And I generated all the possible ways of choosing the values in the list, then I checked if that possible candidate is consistent or not. And I said that if the partial sum (calculated using the + and - in our current list) added to the maximum sum of the remaining elements of the given array is a negative number, then the candidate is inconsistent. If the candidate is consistent and it has the required length, then I said that it is a solution.
For example, if I had the array "array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]" as input, I was given the following solutions:
[0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1]
[0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1]
[0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1]
[0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0]
[0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1]
[0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1]
[0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0]
[0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1]
[0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1]
[0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0]
[0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1]
[0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1]
[0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0]
[0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1]
[1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1]
[1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0]
[1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1]
[1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1]
[1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1]
[1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1]
[1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0]
[1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1]
[1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1]
[1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0]
[1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1]
[1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1]
[1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0]
[1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1]
[1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0]
[1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1]
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0]
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
Backtracking is indeed a reasonable strategy. Since you need to enumerate, there's only one pruning trick that makes an asymptotic difference. Suppose that the array starts with a very large negative number, e.g.,
−50 10 10 10 10 1 2 3 4 5
The sum always includes a −50 term, so the sign for each 10 must be positive since otherwise the remaining numbers aren't large enough to make the overall sum positive. By making the example bigger (more and bigger numbers), we can create an exponential gap between the complexity of naive backtracking and the number of solutions.
If we implement the usual depth-first backtracking strategy and maintain the sum of the absolute values of the remaining array elements, then we can prune every node where the partial sum plus the sum of absolute values is not positive. Since every node not pruned yields at least one solution, we end up with an optimal output-sensitive time complexity.
I'm wondering is there a way I can generate a list whose sublists are all the possible combinations of 0 and 1 with 4 elements? To generate an individual sublist, I have
import random
binum = np.random.randint(2, size=4).tolist()
But how can I get a full list to contain all the possible sublists, each appears once? So the desired output looks like:
[[0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,1]...[1,0,0,1]...[1,1,1,1]]
(There're 16 elements in total for this case). Thanks:)
You basically want all the binary numbers from 0 to 2**n. So, you could use the following code to generate them:
def get_binary_numbers(n):
format_str = f"0{n}b"
max_binary_number = 2**n
return [list(format(i, format_str)) for i in range(max_binary_number)]
Be careful with its performance, if you need big values of n then maybe use the same idea with other ways to generate the lists.
Just iterate over numbers from 0 to 15 and get their binary representation:
In [1]: N = 4
In [2]: def getbit(value, bitnum):
...: mask = 1 << bitnum
...: return (value & mask) >> bitnum
...:
In [3]: [[getbit(i, j) for j in range(N)] for i in range(2 ** N)]
Out[3]:
[[0, 0, 0, 0],
[1, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 0],
[1, 1, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 1, 0],
[1, 0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 1, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 1],
[1, 0, 0, 1],
[0, 1, 0, 1],
[1, 1, 0, 1],
[0, 0, 1, 1],
[1, 0, 1, 1],
[0, 1, 1, 1],
[1, 1, 1, 1]]
Same in numpy:
np.unpackbits(np.expand_dims(np.arange(2 ** N, dtype=np.uint8), -1),
axis=1, bitorder='little', count=N)
Also, you can generate the next element by implementing increment operation on binary array:
def gen(l=4):
a = [0 for _ in range(l)]
while True:
yield a.copy()
i = 0
while i < l and a[i]:
a[i] = 0
i += 1
if i == l:
break
a[i] = 1
You can get the cartesian product of your input using itertools library
from itertools import product
bit_sets = product(range(2), repeat=4)
# format your data code ...
more details at https://docs.python.org/3.1/library/itertools.html?highlight=combinations#itertools.product
This just needs the actual necessary parameters from #yesk13's answer, really, using the cartesian product from itertools
for p in it.product([0, 1], repeat=4):
print(p)
(0, 0, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 0, 1)
(0, 0, 1, 0)
(0, 0, 1, 1)
(0, 1, 0, 0)
(0, 1, 0, 1)
(0, 1, 1, 0)
(0, 1, 1, 1)
(1, 0, 0, 0)
(1, 0, 0, 1)
(1, 0, 1, 0)
(1, 0, 1, 1)
(1, 1, 0, 0)
(1, 1, 0, 1)
(1, 1, 1, 0)
(1, 1, 1, 1)
I am looking for an algorithm to iterate over all arrays of length n whose entries are integers between 0 and d and whose sum is k*d. It would be even better if there is a way to do this with built-in Julia functions and iterators. The algorithm should be non-recursive and memory efficient as I am hoping to use this for reasonable values of n.
For small values of n, d, and k, I've written down all such arrays in lexicographical ordering, but I haven't been able to come up with code for iterating through all such arrays.
I think this should work but it requires Combinatorics.jl and ResumableFunctions.jl
using Combinatorics, ResumableFunctions
#resumable function gen_all(n, k, d)
for x in partitions(k*d + n, n)
x = x .- 1
if all(x .<= d)
ys = Set(permutations(x))
for y in ys
#yield y
end
end
end
end
for ga in gen_all(5, 2, 2)
println(ga)
end
gives
[2, 0, 0, 2, 0]
[2, 0, 0, 0, 2]
[0, 0, 2, 2, 0]
[0, 2, 2, 0, 0]
[2, 0, 2, 0, 0]
[0, 2, 0, 2, 0]
[2, 2, 0, 0, 0]
[0, 0, 0, 2, 2]
[0, 0, 2, 0, 2]
[0, 2, 0, 0, 2]
[0, 2, 0, 1, 1]
[0, 1, 1, 0, 2]
[0, 1, 2, 0, 1]
[0, 1, 1, 2, 0]
[2, 1, 1, 0, 0]
[2, 1, 0, 0, 1]
[0, 0, 1, 1, 2]
[1, 2, 1, 0, 0]
[1, 2, 0, 0, 1]
[0, 1, 2, 1, 0]
[0, 1, 0, 1, 2]
[1, 0, 0, 1, 2]
[0, 2, 1, 1, 0]
[2, 0, 0, 1, 1]
[1, 0, 2, 0, 1]
[1, 2, 0, 1, 0]
[0, 1, 0, 2, 1]
[2, 0, 1, 0, 1]
[0, 2, 1, 0, 1]
[1, 0, 1, 2, 0]
[0, 0, 1, 2, 1]
[1, 0, 0, 2, 1]
[2, 1, 0, 1, 0]
[1, 1, 0, 0, 2]
[1, 0, 2, 1, 0]
[1, 0, 1, 0, 2]
[1, 1, 0, 2, 0]
[0, 0, 2, 1, 1]
[2, 0, 1, 1, 0]
[1, 1, 2, 0, 0]
[1, 1, 1, 0, 1]
[1, 1, 0, 1, 1]
[1, 0, 1, 1, 1]
[1, 1, 1, 1, 0]
[0, 1, 1, 1, 1]
Im trying to write a prolog program that receives a representation of an unsolved Hashi board and answers all the possible solutions, using restrictions. Im having an hard time figuring out which is the best (or a very good) way of representing the board with the bridges and without. The program is supposed to draw the boards for an easy reading of the solutions.
board(
[[3, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 3],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[1, 0, 3, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 1]]
).
For example, this representation is only good without the bridges, since it holds no info about them. The drawing of this board would be basicly turning the 0's into spaces, and the board would be drawn like this:
3 6 6 3
1
2 1
1 3 2
3 4 1
which is a decent representation of a real hashi board.
The point now is to be able to draw the same thing, but also draw bridges if there's any. I must be able to do so before i even think of making the restrictions themselves, since going at it with a bad way of representation will make my job alot more difficult.
I started thinking of solutions like this:
if every element of the board would be a list:
[NumberOfConnections, [ListOfConnections]]
but this gives me no info for the drawing, and what would the list of connections really have?
maybe this:
[Index, NumberOfConnections, [ListOfIndex]]
this way every "island" would have a unique ID and the list of connections would have ids
but drawing still sounds kinda hard, in the end the bridges can only be horizontal or vertical
Anyway, anyone can think of a better way of representation that makes it the easiest to achive the final goal of the program?
Nice puzzle, I agree. Here is a half-way solution in ECLiPSe, a Prolog dialect with constraints (http://eclipseclp.org).
The idea is to have, for every field of the board, four variables N, E, S, W (for North, East, etc) that can take values 0..2 and represent the number of connections on that edge of the field. For the node-fields, these connections must sum up to the given number. For the empty fields, the connections must go through (N=S, E=W) and not cross (N=S=0 or E=W=0).
Your example solves correctly:
?- hashi(stackoverflow).
3 = 6 = = = 6 = 3
| X X |
| 1 X X |
| | X X |
2 | X 1 X |
| | X | X |
| | X | X |
1 | 3 - - 2 X |
3 = = = = 4 1
but the wikipedia one doesn't, because there is no connectedness constraint yet!
:- lib(ic). % uses the integer constraint library
hashi(Name) :-
board(Name, Board),
dim(Board, [Imax,Jmax]),
dim(NESW, [Imax,Jmax,4]), % 4 variables N,E,S,W for each field
( foreachindex([I,J],Board), param(Board,NESW,Imax,Jmax) do
Sum is Board[I,J],
N is NESW[I,J,1],
E is NESW[I,J,2],
S is NESW[I,J,3],
W is NESW[I,J,4],
( I > 1 -> N #= NESW[I-1,J,3] ; N = 0 ),
( I < Imax -> S #= NESW[I+1,J,1] ; S = 0 ),
( J > 1 -> W #= NESW[I,J-1,2] ; W = 0 ),
( J < Jmax -> E #= NESW[I,J+1,4] ; E = 0 ),
( Sum > 0 ->
[N,E,S,W] #:: 0..2,
N+E+S+W #= Sum
;
N = S, E = W,
(N #= 0) or (E #= 0)
)
),
% find a solution
labeling(NESW),
print_board(Board, NESW).
print_board(Board, NESW) :-
( foreachindex([I,J],Board), param(Board,NESW) do
( J > 1 -> true ; nl ),
Sum is Board[I,J],
( Sum > 0 ->
write(Sum)
;
NS is NESW[I,J,1],
EW is NESW[I,J,2],
symbol(NS, EW, Char),
write(Char)
),
write(' ')
),
nl.
symbol(0, 0, ' ').
symbol(0, 1, '-').
symbol(0, 2, '=').
symbol(1, 0, '|').
symbol(2, 0, 'X').
% Examples
board(stackoverflow,
[]([](3, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 3),
[](0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
[](0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
[](0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
[](2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0),
[](0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
[](0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
[](1, 0, 3, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0),
[](0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 1))
).
board(wikipedia,
[]([](2, 0, 4, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0),
[](0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 1),
[](0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 3, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0),
[](2, 0, 3, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0),
[](0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 5, 0, 3, 0, 4, 0, 0),
[](1, 0, 5, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0),
[](0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 2, 0, 4, 0, 2),
[](0, 0, 4, 0, 4, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0),
[](0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
[](2, 0, 2, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 2, 0, 3),
[](0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 4, 0, 4, 0, 3, 0),
[](0, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
[](3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 2))
).
For drawing bridges, you could use ASCII 179 for single vertical bridges, 186 for double vertical bridges, 196 for single horizontal bridges, and 205 for double horizontal bridges. This depends on which extended ASCII set is in use, though. It works in the most common.
For internal representation, I'd use -1 and -2 for single and double bridges in one direction, and -3 and -4 in the other. You could use just about any symbol that isn't 0-8, but this has the added benefit of simply adding the bridges to the island (converting (-3, -4) to (-1, -2)) to check the solution. If the sum is 0, that island is solved.
What a cool puzzle! I did a few myself, and I don't see an obvious way to make solving them deterministic, which is a nice property for a puzzle to have. Games like Tetris derive much of their ongoing play value from the fact that you don't get bored--even a good strategy can continually be refined. This has a practical ramification: if I were coding this, I would spend no further time trying to find a deterministic algorithm. I would instead focus on the generate/test paradigm Prolog excels at.
If you know you're going to do generate-and-test, you know already where all your effort at optimization is going to go: making your generator more intelligent (so it generates better candidates) and making your test fast. So I'm looking at your board representation and I'm asking myself: is it going to be easy and fast to generate alternatives from this? And we both know the answer is no, for several reasons:
Finding alternative islands to connect to from any particular island is going to be highly inefficient: searching a list forward and backward and then indexing all the other lists by the current offset. This is a huge amount of list finagling, which won't be cheap.
Detecting and preventing a bridge crossing is going to be interesting.
More to the point, the proper way to encode bridges is not obvious with this design. Islands can be separated by great distances--are you going to put a 0/1/2 in every connecting cell? If so, you have a data duplication problem; if not, you're going to have some fun calculating which location should hold the bridge count.
It's just an intuition, but having a heterogeneous data structure like this where the "kind" of element is determined entirely by whether the indices are odd or even, strikes me as unwelcome.
I think what you've got for the board layout is a great input format, but I don't think it's going to serve you well as an intermediate representation. The game is clearly a graph problem. This suggests one of the two classic graph data structures might be more helpful: the adjacency list, or the edge matrix. Either of these will expedite choosing alternatives for bridge layout, but it's not obvious to me (maybe to someone who does more graph theory) how one would prevent bridge crossings. Ideally, your data structure would simply prevent bridge crossings from occurring. Next best would be preventing the generator from generating candidate solutions with bridge crossings; worst would be to simply fail them at the test stage.