On 7/10/19 1:07 PM, Quentin Long via use-livecode wrote:
One fictional contemplation of the 4th and 5th
dimensions:https://johnesimpson.com/pdf/Ifth_of_oofth-waltertevis.pdf
Heh. Thanks, Quentin. Walter Tevis' first published story!
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
Wonderful! [Massive-grin]. That pleases me a lot. Thank you for sharing it. :D
Sean Cole
Pi Digital Prod Ltd
> On 11 Jul 2019, at 16:17, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Great story!
>
> Bob S
>
>
>> On Jul 10, 2019, at 13:07 , Quentin Long via use-livecode
>> wrote:
>>
>> sez
Great story!
Bob S
> On Jul 10, 2019, at 13:07 , Quentin Long via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> sez Sean Cole (Pi):>I've just been teaching my youngest about the 4th - nth
> dimensions. Time is
>> not the 4th but the 1st temporal dimension. If the 3 spatial dimensions are
>> Length, height and
sez Sean Cole (Pi):>I've just been teaching my youngest about the 4th - nth
dimensions. Time is
>not the 4th but the 1st temporal dimension. If the 3 spatial dimensions are
>Length, height and width then the 4th is depth, ie, going inwards and
>outwards as the easiest way to picture it (but not
Perhaps warmth, strength, wealth, breadth, greenth.
Maybe forth, growth, faith, health.
> On Jul 7, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I've just been teaching my youngest about the 4th - nth dimensions. Time is
> not the 4th but the 1st temporal dimension. If the 3
What my cat looks for.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 15:08 Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> I've just been teaching my youngest about the 4th - nth dimensions. Time is
> not the 4th but the 1st temporal dimension. If the 3 spatial dimensions are
> Length, height
I've just been teaching my youngest about the 4th - nth dimensions. Time is
not the 4th but the 1st temporal dimension. If the 3 spatial dimensions are
Length, height and width then the 4th is depth, ie, going inwards and
outwards as the easiest way to picture it (but not truly representative).
Heh! That reminds me, I knew a British professor once who used the illustration
that a two dimensional being, confronted with a line would perceive it as
impassible. He then went on to explain how it might be that a 3 dimensional
being, when needing to see into the future might perceive it as
Sure. I do it all the time and everybody knows how 1D I am.
Some random thoughts:
A Turing machine might be considered 1D. It can draw x,y.
This past month, I was working in very high dimensions. I was not able to
visualize that very well and used dimension reduction techniques such as PCA,
Hmmm... I wonder if theoretically a one dimensional being could draw x,y.
Bob S
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 14:54 , hh via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> @Dar.
>
> Probably you wish with your post avoid the confusion between
>
> = a math-point (x,y) which has no dimension, so cannot be drawn and
[Sorry, confused notation. The last part of my previous post should read:]
This is certainly in general a clear method for counting/ identifying
pixels. For example:
The rect (x1,y1,x2,y2) with x1 I wrote:
> "Use center pixel coordinates" does probably mean you use the math-loc
> of a pixel as
> Ralph D. wrote:
> You don't need sub-pixels per say but you need to know they exist.
> I found that out real quick when writing the color gradient math for
> CGI. If I did not use center pixel coordinates the gradients were
> "jaggy" so to speak.
"Use center pixel coordinates" does probably
vices
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net
-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of hh via use-livecode
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 7:01 PM
To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Cc: hh
Subject: Re: math on widths doesn't add up
@Dar.
Could we agree that in LC
Sure, I'll agree (SVG notwithstanding).
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 5:01 PM, hh via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> @Dar.
> Could we agree that in LC Script we cannot draw subpixels? (I would like
> to...)
>
> And yes, you are right with the invariance of width and height. The number of
> pixels
>
@Dar.
Could we agree that in LC Script we cannot draw subpixels? (I would like to...)
And yes, you are right with the invariance of width and height. The number of
pixels
isn't dependent of how I enumerate them. Sorry.
> I don't understand why you say "pixel 1".
OK. I should say pixel 1
For some reason the message below was delayed a while and thus is out of order.
Looking back, I see hh has been mentioning things like first pixel and counting
pixels. This might be where there is confusion. I was referring to pixels by
the LiveCode reference.
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:13 PM,
When we apply math, we must map what we see to our mathematical models. What
we see is LiveCode. The application of math is thus an interpretation. (The
interpretation of calendar year or how-old-are-you might not apply.)
I do agree with you, except for the part that one has to redefine width
I tried to avoid the confusion by using the word pixel. I goofed somewhere.
I don't understand why you say "pixel 1". Other that that, I think we are
saying the same thing.
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 3:54 PM, hh via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> @Dar.
>
> Probably you wish with your post avoid the
When we apply math, we must map what we see to our mathematical models. What
we see is LiveCode. The application of math is thus an interpretation. (The
interpretation of calendar year or how-old-are-you might not apply.)
I do agree with you, except for the part that one has to redefine width
@Dar.
Probably you wish with your post avoid the confusion between
= a math-point (x,y) which has no dimension, so cannot be drawn and
= a LC-point (x,y) which is (with a linewidth of 1) in fact a
shorthand for the rect (x,y,x+1,y+1)= 1 pixel, which can be drawn.
So the LC-point (x,y) is (with
This is interestingly the same problem that made a lot of people believe
two thousand years were full at the end of 1999/ beginning of 2000.
Two thousand years were full at the END of 2000/ beginning of 2001:
Full year 1 has the left 0, the right 1 and the width = right-left = 1 year,
...,
full
I like this interpretation. I don't think it is a popular view, but it makes
sense to me.
I would change the range wording, though, to something like this:
Pixel 0 ranges from 0 to 1.
For example, the rect of a card has zeros.
Maybe it depends on whether one wants to draw pixels on the
Nothing is wrong:
If you have a row then left is the integer left of first pixel
and right is the integer right of last pixel.
So left and right are the integers that limit the object, NOT pixel numbers.
As to your example:
pixel 1 ranges from 0 to 1, ... pixel 12 ranges from 11 to 12.
The left
Playing around with a couple of things needing alignment, I’ve noticed that the
math on widths and edges isn’t quite right.
For example, I have a boundary rect of width 12, with a left of 0 and a right
of 12.
One of these is wrong . . . a width of 12 would go from 0 to 11; 0 to 12 is 13
24 matches
Mail list logo
