R. Clayton (rclayton@clayton.cs.monmouth.edu)
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:01:09 -0500 (EST)
Supposing a rectangle on level 0 moved entirely out from under its previous
rectangle and over a rectangle on level, say, 2. Is it necessary to
reorganize all of the rectanlges to re-establish the rule "A rectangle that
is not above any other rectangle has level 0."?
No; it's not a rule but a definition ("no cycles" is a rule). For any position
a rectangle may be in, it has a level determined by the rectangle's position.
For any particular level the rectangle can be many positions that are
consistent with that level; however, only one of those positions is correct
with respect to a given sequence of moves.
Do we need to worry about this or is this just the starting rule for dropping
down the rectangles onto the plane?
I wouldn't have put it in the problem if I didn't want you to worry about it.
It is the starting definition (the base case) for determining a rectangle's
level.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 17 2001 - 12:00:05 EDT