On 03/03/2011 02:03 PM, Miroslav Pokorny wrote:
But are they constantly reinventing how they define or express formulas etc ?
It depends on what you mean for that "constantly". For instance, at some point in history quaternions were not invented. At that point, if you wanted to do 3D transformations you could, but it was cumbersome (because of some problems related with trig functions going to infinity for certain angles). Then somebody invented quaternions, and somebody else was able to remap the 3D thing in a much cleaner form. Now, the quaternion thing for 3D has been done, and probably there's no more need to simplify that theory. But they could be useful for something else too and somebody might be going to discover it.
Note that quaternions weren't invented on that purpose, so the guy that was able to redefine 3D transformations was able to find the better solution probably because it was curious about learning "new languages " :-)
BTW, if I'm not wrong (but I'm entering a foreign field to me) Stephen Hawkins was able to improve his cosmological models with a very similar approach (probably, with quaternions too?), avoiding "singularities"
-- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
