Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Wed Oct 22 09:24:09 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9MGO9wI008667 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:24:09 -0700 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9MGXoRX009801 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:33:50 -0700 Message-Id: <200810221633.m9MGXoRX009801@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: Extra homework Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:33:50 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > Regarding the 2nd part of the 1st problem, would this be the format ? > > Orig. Name New Name Level LMs > a h.a.a 1 h > b h.a.b 0 h,a > c h.a.c 0 h,a > d > ... > h h.h.h 2 - > .... > > I have promoted 'h' to level 2 and 'a'&'o' to level 1. > > Considering that, are the above answers correct ? I didn't even realize that there was the "2nd part of the 1st problem"! The term "new name" was incorrect. It should be "addresses" because things like "h.a.a" is the address of landmark "a" and a landmark may have more than one addresses. I've just changed "new name" to "addresses" in the spec. Also, the "2nd part of the 1st problem" depends on your solution to the 1st part of the 1st problem. Since the solution of the 1st part was not given, we cannot talk about the solution to the 2nd part! -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu