You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In alttpr, for instance, small keys in a dungeon are all identical, or progressive objects (sword, glove). And we want to be able to express properties such as: to reach location X, I need at least that many items.
The basic plan is to
transform the pseudo-arithmetic clause so that the goal is a time n+1 first, so that this becomes a normal pseudo-arithmetic clause
use techniques from the minisat+ paper to transform such a pseudo-arithmetic clause into normal SAT clauses
In order to avoid silly combinatory explosion, we also need to make sure that the various copies of the same item that this will produce (I think) are ordered, and locations are ordered too, and that we only affect a larger copy of an item to a larger location (otherwise, we would produce a problem with two equivalent configuration, and we don't want that!)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The parser still doesn't, but it's comparatively easy. After that we
are done with #10.
This implied a large amount of refactoring. The code is all the
better.
In alttpr, for instance, small keys in a dungeon are all identical, or progressive objects (sword, glove). And we want to be able to express properties such as: to reach location X, I need at least that many items.
The basic plan is to
n+1
first, so that this becomes a normal pseudo-arithmetic clauseIn order to avoid silly combinatory explosion, we also need to make sure that the various copies of the same item that this will produce (I think) are ordered, and locations are ordered too, and that we only affect a larger copy of an item to a larger location (otherwise, we would produce a problem with two equivalent configuration, and we don't want that!)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: