Robert has moved into a new house. He has a number N of boxes from his previous home. Each box bi has a volume vi. He must fit those boxes in 2 rooms of the house and is not allowed to put any box outside of those two rooms yet. The volume of the room1 is V1 and the volume of the room2 is V2. The total volume of the boxes (v1+â¦+vn) is greater than V1+V2. So, He is not going to be able to fit all the boxes, but he wants to maximize the numbers of boxes in the 2 rooms (or minimize the boxes left outside of the rooms). He is an expert in robotics and got 2 robotic agents that can do the moving for them. The agents can move around the 2 rooms and the house, they can detect the boxes and their size with their sensors and can get them and place them in the rooms.
The successor function embedded in the software that controls the agents has been defined to pick up boxes at random and place them in any of the rooms also at random until there is no more space in the rooms. You need to define a new successor function by using an algorithm we have covered in class and hand the implementation to Robert, so he can insert it in the software that control the robots.
Explain why the robots are not doing a good job when choosing the boxes at random
What kind of agents are in the system? Why?
Formulate the problem in detail. Describe well the possible states. (Draw a generic tree)
Define the kind of environment Robert is dealing with (continuos? , deterministic?â¦..
Define the PEAS.
According to the problem, the goal formulation and the states define an algorithm that implements the successor function. (Choose one of the algorithms we saw in class).
Implement the pseudocode algorithm in a high-level language. (C++, Python) . Pay attention to the data structure you choose to keep the states the function is going through.
Comment the complexity, the completeness and the results of the algorithm.
Sample Solution
Article 24 (1) of the Directive 2004/38 states âall Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State.â This suggests he is entitled to the equal treatment of being able to attend the special needs school regardless of the requirement as it wouldnât apply to British nationals. The principle of equal treatment is set out in Art 24 (1) of Directive 2004/38 which states âall Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member Stateâ. In the case of Inzirillo v Caisse dâAllocations Familiales de lâArrondissement de Lyon the Court of Justice held that an allowance for disabled adults that a Member State awarded to its own nationals constituted to a social advantage to which an EU national should be equally entitled under such circumstances. The facts included that the EU citizen could apply on behalf of the family member. Although in the case the person was an adult, the principle is still the same that Charlotte is applying on behalf of her brother due to his age. Article 14 (4) (b) of the directive covers that the host State is not obliged to grant social assistance to the members of the Union worker in the first three months of residence. This is not applicable to Bjarne as he has been living in London for the past 4 years so the State is able to acquire him with social assistance. As Bjarne is too young to have the knowledge and understanding to best enforce his rights, Charlotte will be required to do it on his behalf. The best way to enforce his rights are on the grounds of the State breaching his Article 18 rights and Regulation 492/2011 rights . The requirement for Bjarne to have resided in the UK for 5 years constitutes to discrimination. The requirement is unlawful and is set in the Treaty Provision in Article 18 , which includes direct discrimination of nationality is prohibited. This is legally binding which means it constitutes to direct effect. The test which was set out in the case of Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen needs to be satisfied in order for Charlotte to use vertical direct effect. The requirements include: the EU provision needs to be sufficiently clear and precise, which Article 18 TFEU is. The provision must be unconditional, which it is only to EU citizens which Bjarne is, and it must leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its implementation by an institution or national authority which Article 18 doesnât. As the provision passes these requirements, Charlot>
Article 24 (1) of the Directive 2004/38 states âall Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State.â This suggests he is entitled to the equal treatment of being able to attend the special needs school regardless of the requirement as it wouldnât apply to British nationals. The principle of equal treatment is set out in Art 24 (1) of Directive 2004/38 which states âall Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member Stateâ. In the case of Inzirillo v Caisse dâAllocations Familiales de lâArrondissement de Lyon the Court of Justice held that an allowance for disabled adults that a Member State awarded to its own nationals constituted to a social advantage to which an EU national should be equally entitled under such circumstances. The facts included that the EU citizen could apply on behalf of the family member. Although in the case the person was an adult, the principle is still the same that Charlotte is applying on behalf of her brother due to his age. Article 14 (4) (b) of the directive covers that the host State is not obliged to grant social assistance to the members of the Union worker in the first three months of residence. This is not applicable to Bjarne as he has been living in London for the past 4 years so the State is able to acquire him with social assistance. As Bjarne is too young to have the knowledge and understanding to best enforce his rights, Charlotte will be required to do it on his behalf. The best way to enforce his rights are on the grounds of the State breaching his Article 18 rights and Regulation 492/2011 rights . The requirement for Bjarne to have resided in the UK for 5 years constitutes to discrimination. The requirement is unlawful and is set in the Treaty Provision in Article 18 , which includes direct discrimination of nationality is prohibited. This is legally binding which means it constitutes to direct effect. The test which was set out in the case of Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen needs to be satisfied in order for Charlotte to use vertical direct effect. The requirements include: the EU provision needs to be sufficiently clear and precise, which Article 18 TFEU is. The provision must be unconditional, which it is only to EU citizens which Bjarne is, and it must leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its implementation by an institution or national authority which Article 18 doesnât. As the provision passes these requirements, Charlot>
