On Wednesday 29 November 2006 16:04, Philip Goetz wrote: > On 11/29/06, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There will be many occurances of the smaller subregions, corresponding to > > all different sizes and positions of Tom's face in the raster. In other > > words, the Tom's face region is fractal. > > Are you saying that a hierarchy of categories is just a linear chain > of resolutions?
A *linear* chain of resolutions would be just one root-to-leaf path in an abstraction tree (root=lo-res, leaves = all the hi-res pix that would map into that lo-res one). The whole tree would be a hierarchy of categories. > I don't see why you need to work with multiple dimensionalities - at > least, when identifying Tom's face, you need only deal with one > dimensionality, although you might use fewer dimensions when looking > for any old human face. At the raster level, you can brighten or dim any one pixel without substantially changing whose face it is. At higher levels of abstraction you can move the vector along dimensions of lighting, orientation, and size without changing whose face it is. These invariants can be captured by transformations or projections in the space -- they're the kind of regularity that I'm trying to capture implicitly by using n-spaces, rather than having to represent explicitly in pointer-and-tag record structures. --Josh ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
