1...2...3...4...5
7...............6
8.......9........
13..12.....11..10
versus 1...2...3...4...5
13..............6
12......9........
11..10......8...7 1...2...3...4...5
7...............6
8.......9........
13..12.....11..10
versus 1...2...3...4...5
13..............6
12......9........
11..10......8...7http://www.texample.net/media/tikz/examples/PNG/hilbert-curv...
This might lead to say
. . . . . . . .
1 . . . . . . 2
4 . . . . . . 3
. . . . . . . .
when
. . . . . . . .
1 . . . . . . 4
2 . . . . . . 3
. . . . . . . .
is more efficient.
Generally speaking, it seems this is basically TSP.
You can even see that in the argument I added to the post; while a zig-zag line might've been, in theory, a stupider, easier way to solve the problem, in practice it would've meant spending some time thinking about the right discretization. With a Hilbert-curve, I could just choose some n that is definitely large enough and be done with it and the additional cost of the more complicated curve doesn't really factor in, as I could just copy-paste it anyway.
But yes. The theoretical problem is a TSP and with the right set of tools, I could've added some efficiency to the search by viewing it as such.