I think it is an interesting programming topic (and I
did not mean my earlier comments to be absolute - it
was directed at the seemingly unresolvable debates
about whether or not do such and such).  Most sorting
is done, it seems, on some sort of scalar level, and I
was interested in the idea of using each sort item as
a description of something else, in this case a point
on a plane.  (I'm not sure why your #4 comment means
my function is wrong.  Unless you mean that the
resulting sorted list is in order according to "its
distance from a point 0,0 that defines the most
'lower-left' point of an arbitrary plane".  I.E. it
only works in quadrant II of that old x-y graph. 
Please explain, if not.  Maybe what's more useful
would be the function sorting in terms of distance
from any point, where I think the deltas come back
in.)  To me it could relate to some sort of
abstraction on sort (using objects, blocks whatever)
that might be useful.  I guess I knew I was opening
myself up to a "look who's talking" attitude, but I
was thinking about a real-world problem in terms of
some abstraction and trying to really understand what
the original poster's interleave method was getting
at.  Often that leads to a cool generalization that
can be used elsewhere.  That's why I considered it to
be a programming topic.  You could argue it belonged
in a different list, but this is where the original
post was, and I'm trying to learn REBOL, so it's where
I posted.  Is that the same as a thread discussing why
MS is successful, or why they suck?  Again, on some
level you could argue it is.  Up to you, I guess.

 
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> although your question has a little in common with
> Rebol, my answers are as
> follows:
> 
> 1. It would be more precise to interleave each bit -
> ie. each binary digit -
> as the smallest unit of information
> 
> 2. in that case the bit - sort yields:
>  [0,0 2,2 1,5 5,1]
> 
> 3. as you pointed out, the result of the sort
> doesn't depend on the
> representation, but on the comparison function, any
> suitable representation
> can do
> 
> 4. your suggestion doesn't work, because you need
> close things in the terms
> of distance to remain close in the terms of sort.
> Your suggestion works only
> in the neighborhood of the 0,0 point
> 
> Best regards
>     Ladislav
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 1:04 PM
> Subject: [REBOL] Interleaving of strings question
> 
> 
> > I was thinking about the earlier postings about
> > sorting coordinates by interleaving digits of the
> 2
> > axis values.  The interleaving, it would seem, is
> to
> > make the longitude as significant as the latitude,
> in
> > terms of distance from other points.  Ignoring the
> > need to have the lat/long pairs stored that way
> for
> > later processing, and ignoring stated expected
> values
> > for the coordinates I thought:
> >
> > 1.  Wouldn't it be more precise to interleave each
> > digit?
> >
> > 2.  In terms of a regular x,y system, even that
> would
> > be incorrect sometimes. E.G.: [ 0,0 1,5 2,2 5,1 ]
> (a
> > sorted set of simplified coordinates) isn't
> correct.
> > 2,2 is closer to 0,0; 1,5 and 5,1 are the same
> > distance from 0,0.
> >
> > 3.  Could pairs or tuples be used?  Answer: pairs
> > didn't sort that way and I have no reason to
> assume
> > sort would think of tuples as coordinates.
> >
> > 4.  Wouldn't it be the least convoluted to have a
> > /compare function for sort that understood that
> all
> > components of the coordinate were equally
> significant?
> >  That way there's no manipulating the coordinates,
> and
> > it should be the most precise.
> >
> > Would a Pythagorean type thing work, because it
> looks
> > like simply summing the absolute differences
> between
> > each coordinate component isn't right:
> >
> > 1,1 to 1,5 = 4  ((1-1)+(5-1))
> > 1,1 to 2,4 = 4  ((2-1)+(4-1))
> >
> > yet 2,4 is closer to 1,1 than is 1,5.  Until the
> real
> > distance is needed, I don't think you'd have to
> take
> > the square root of the sum (and how do you do that
> for
> > 3-dimensions, does it become cubed and cube root -
> > aha)
> >
> > (ABS(x1-x2) to the nth) + (ABS(y1-y2) to the nth)
> ...
> > + (ABS(n1-n2) to the nth)
> >
> >
> > Comments?  Is this right?
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Send instant messages & get email alerts with
> Yahoo! Messenger.
> > http://im.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

Reply via email to