No Magic In A Knight's Tour

morgothan writes "As reported in an article on Math World the solution, or rather lack of solution has been found to the over one hundred fifty year old math problem of how many numbers of magic tours a knight can make on a standard 8x8 chessboard. It turn out that there exist one hundred forty distinct semimagic tours, but no magic tour. The solution came after 61.40 CPU-days, corresponding to 138.25 days of computation at 1 GHz, the project was completed on August 5, 2003 in which every possible enumeration was tried out. The author of the software that finally solved the problem has also put up a webpage in which he further explains the problem and his method of solving it." Thanks to Mig for pointing out a great background page on Chessbase.com.

Comments

That's nice, but not impressive

[Kombat]

Whatever happened to the classic style of problem-solving, whereby an actual proof was deduced, rather than simply employing brute-force to "count them all?" I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm glad that we finally have an answer to this pressing question (which I'm sure 95% of us had never heard of prior to reading this article), but does anyone else feel that these "brute-force" solutions are kind of cheating?

Re:That's nice, but not impressive

[JanneM]

Nah. A result is a result no matter what methods were used to produce it. No cheating.

That said, there are arguments in favour of a classical proof as well. First, of course, is the matter of elegance; an elegant symbolic proof is a lot more pleasing than a brute-force approach (though an inelegant symbolic proof is as bad - or worse - than a method like this).

Second, a theoretical proof is sometimes more interesting for the secondary results it produces and the new avenues of progress in other areas, rather than in the proof itself. This is generally lacking for brute-force methods.

But in reality, these methods complement each other quite nicely. Knowing what the result should be, making an elegant classical proof of it becomes so much easier than before. And of course, you tend to need to know quite a lot about a problem (culled from classical methods) before you can formulate a prq'acticable brute-force approach.

Brute force--Bring it on!

[Unknown Kadath]

I've been seeing a lot of comments disappointed with brute-force problem-solving--but I am all for it. Here's why:

In my job, I do fine structural analysis and computational fluid dynamics for aerospace design. Aerospace engineering is rapidly reaching the point where simplified, elegant models are inadequate to the real-world structures they are meant to mimic. For instance, the Navier-Stokes equations, a set of second-order partial differential equations which describe fluid flow, are not susceptible to analytical solution in any but the most simplified cases, and as things like airfoils, turbine blades, and computers grow more refined, their properties require much hairier math to describe. Turbulent flow around a wing or turbine blade has no elegant solution, but a brute-force computational model can yield a solution that allows us to design a lighter wing, and thus a more fuel-efficient plane, or a stronger turbine fan, and a more efficient generator. Or, to cite an example near and dear to many slashdotter hearts, as we can better model the heat transfer inside a microprocessor, we can better devise ways to cool it, and thus build a faster, more stable computer. (And then, we can solve more iterations on it, and build an even faster computer...and then we can solve more iterations... ^_~)

There is an intense intellectual satisfaction to a 20 or 100 line proof (I still remember the triumph of my high school proof that a triangle's interior angles sum to 180), but for a lot of things, there simply exist no such proofs. As we tackle more and more mathematical problems, those with relatively simple proofs will quickly be solved and set aside, and we will move on to messier things. For instance, the proof of Fermat's Theorem runs to several hundred pages of dense elliptic curve math. It was an aesthetic disappointment for those hoping for a simpler solution, but it was a triumph for the field of mathematics as a whole.

There is a whole 'nother world of proofs involved in brute-force solutions. Estimated time to solution, order of error--elegant mathematical tools are still necessary, but they are increasingly used to delineate regions of uncertainty as the complete picture becomes messier. The closer mathematical models get to the real world, the more complex and beautiful, but the less elegant, they become. I do not think that the field of mathematics will stop producing elegant proofs, but I do think they will have less and less to do with the world we live in and more and more to do with hypothetical mathematical constructs, whose usefulness will then filter down in the form of special cases to more prosaic disciplines, like science and engineering. This diminishes neither science nor engineering, and adds to the knowledge available in all fields.

-Carolyn