XP is just a number  
PerlMonks 
comment on 
( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml )  Need Help?? 
Blokhead,
A query; Surely it is possible only to solve the problem in exactly O(n) when there is one more peg than discs plus one. (It could be that I misunderstand the O(n), O(log n), O(n^2) notation...) Example: In the quickest solution for three pegs and three discs, for example, the large disc moves once, the medium disc moves twice and the smallest disc moves four times. Example 2: Where there are three rings and four pegs, each ring only moves twice. UPDATE:Thanks to Thor for pointing out my error, below. As a general rule, I find that for n pegs and n discs the number of moves required is 2n + 1. If, however, there are n discs and n + 1 (or more) pegs, then 2n  1 moves are required. Can someone with a better understanding of the formalisms tell me whether either of these is O(n) ??? It is better either to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few. Pythagoras (582 BC  507 BC) In reply to Re^2: Hanoi Challenge
by Elgon

