Talk:God's algorithm

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Okay, the following claims need citations:

God's algorithm is a notion originating in discussions of ways to solve the Rubik's Cube puzzle
...but which can also be applied to other combinatorial puzzles
...and mathematical games.
The notion applies to puzzles that can assume a finite number of "configurations"... God's algorithm, then, for a given puzzle, is an algorithm that solves the puzzle and produces only optimal solutions.
For the notion of "God's algorithm" to be meaningful, it must further be required that the algorithm be practical...
For the Towers of Hanoi puzzle, a God's algorithm exists for any given number of disks.

These are all reasonable ideas, but where do they come from? Melchoir 21:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I added some references but left in {{unreferenced}} since not all of your concerns have been addressed. I removed {{OR}} since there appears to be no original research in the page. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still looks like original research to me. The Towers of Hanoi reference doesn't speak of "God's algorithms" or any other concept that is claimed to have historically arisen from the Rubik's cube. How is it relevant to this article? Melchoir 02:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference shows a "practical algorithm that produces a solution having the least possible number of moves" for the generalized Tower of Hanoi puzzle. You're right, it doesn't use the term, but I was just trying to get the soircing started. There are no sources on the origin of the term -- for all I know the term started with the Tower of Hanoi and was later applied to Rubik's Cube. (I've read otherwise, but I have no references handy. We already agree that the article needs references, though, so there's no argument there.)

I've numbered your claims, above. (1) needs a reference. That the concept can be applied to other puzzles and games is sufficiently obvious that it needs no reference, but I'm sure one can be found if needed for (2) and (3). (4) and (5) follow directly from the definition, and as such need no source; of course you may be pointing out that no reference actually gives a sufficient definition (I haven't read the reference that was already in the article, it probably has a definition but I don't know) in which case I agree. (6) I have addressed with a reference. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]