On Oct 18, 5:09 pm, Robert Israel <isr...@math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca> wrote: > Proginoskes <CCHeck...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Oct 18, 2:36 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote: > > > hardwidg said: > > > > > On Oct 18, 10:33 am, Water Cooler v2 <wtr_...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> I thought it would be too cumbersome as in the actual problem I have > > > >> at hand, the number of "fruits" are about 255 and the number of boxes, > > > >> about 60. > > > > > I don't think any algorithm can ever finish, since it sounds like you > > > > want to list 255^60 entries, which is greater than 10^144. > > > > > The universe has something like 10^80 atoms and is less than 10^18 > > > > seconds old. > > > > > Even if you had every atom working for the life of the universe, you'd > > > > still need them to create 10^46 entries each second! Even if they > > > > could make one entry per Planck time, you'll still only be able to > > > > create about 1/1000 of the entries! > > > > Just use a quantum computer to tap into the computational potential of > > > infinitely many universes. Total runtime: about a sixteenth of a second > > > (i.e. as long as it takes you to realise that it's finished). > > > The only problem is that the output is spread across 10^144 universes. > > Compiling the list in one universe will require all the time that you > > saved by spreading out the work. > > > Of course, if you had connections from each quantum universe to ours, > > then they could write their output all at the same time, and it would > > work. > > It would? Where in this universe would they put the output? We don't have > enough atoms to write each entry on an existing atom. And if their output > involves adding new atoms to our universe, it'll make things rather crowded... > and have very serious effects on space-time.
That's right ... This is a finite-matter universe. ... It gets so confusing when you hop from one to another, doesn't it?