Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 22

New comment
 
Ghenadie Tumco:
Why do you focus on finding peaks and troughs in space?
In the summer, in the sand on the beach, find the smallest sand, not a complete overshoot.
Is that realistic!? Without a full search, no...:)
Because even the tester is guided by this. It draws three-dimensional pictures of the surfaces. Notice that it's three-dimensional, not 128-dimensional.
 
That's true, but it's meta-quotes.... What they could do is what they did.
Note, participating with bonuses suggests that perhaps, and they are interested in better solutions.
For now, we can only suspect that something better is in store for the initiator of the world championship.
 
Ghenadie Tumco:
That's true, but it's meta-quotes.... What they could do is what they did.
Note, participating with bonuses suggests that perhaps, and they are interested in better solutions.
For now, we can only suspect that something better is in store for the initiator of the world championship.
Well...))))) If so.... )))))
 
Реter Konow:
Well... ))))) If so.... )))))

I'm just in a good mood... :) It happens.... So 90% of what I write is sarcasm.

Seriously, so many times, many have hinted, and openly told the initiator to write the rules, regulations, so that everything would be understandable to all, but, already a branch, talk about something ....

 
Ghenadie Tumco:

I'm just in a good mood... :) It happens.... So 90% of what I write is sarcasm.

Seriously, so many times, many have hinted, and openly told the initiator to write the rules, regulations, so that everything would be understandable to all, but, already a branch, talk about something ....

You see, I am with both hands in favour of the championship. I supported and will support the initiative of Andrew. But there is something else. The main idea is stalled. A mistake in the understanding of the task. I cannot make sense of it. Logical defects in either my thinking or the formulation of the problem. I'm trying to figure it out with everyone else. Once we come to a common denominator, we can move forward. Otherwise, I won't be able to participate, as I can't understand the task if I don't imagine it "physically".
 
That's what I'm talking about. I'm all for it too. But, I'm not for not understanding what's going on, nor am I for others not getting involved.
As one moderator here said, paraphrasing Einstein.... The point was that everyone should understand what's going on here.
 
Реter Konow:

Why should I be confused...

Look at this:

An object is acurved line constructed on a graph by drawingone line through n number of points whose coordinates are obtainedby solving levels of some analytical function.

Necessary number of measurements to construct an object: - Determined by calculating the coordinates of the minimum number of points on the plane (or in space) of a graph, for the subsequent drawing of a line through them. The coordinate calculations need exactly as many measurements as the curved line we need.

It dependson whether the curve line is drawn in plane or space. If in the plane,the object curved line, will be in two dimensions -Height andLength, represented by theX andY coordinate axes. If we draw a curved line that goes through space (such as inside a cube),the number of measurements of the object will increase, so as to have to calculate the coordinates of the object in one more dimension - Width, represented by the Z-axis. Thus there will be three dimensionsX,Y,Z.(Of course the analytic function itself should return the coordinates along the Z-axis).


The analytic function, is simply a mathematical equation reflecting the spatial phenomenon of the surface of various geometric objects. It provides all the necessary range of coordinates to construct various curved lines. However, the more complex the line, the more complex the equation that returns its coordinates on the graph.

Rejection Konow:
You began to enumerate "dimensions" of geometrical bodies so confidently that I already thought, you will continue and start to enumerate other, unknown to me dimensions, but you for some reason have stopped on the fourth known dimension. Time. Please continue your list of dimensions. :)

Reg Konow:
It seems to me that you are confusing the number of parameters of an analytic function with the number of measurements for which the line coordinates are calculated.
RetagKonow:
You see, when it came to the number of FF parameters, the question of additional object dimensions was immediately raised. This is where the confusion is rooted. The number of parameters of an analytic function has nothing to do with the coordinate axes. And it doesn't increase them in any way.

Here... Collected several of your posts... There are errors in all of them. It is not a problem, we will fix it now.

There are notions of Function - some dependence on parameters, you even have parameters mixed up with coefficients in some places. And there are Equations - all parameters are reduced to a general dependence.

So, let's start with a simple one. Equation:

2*x+3=0, is an equation of the form a*X+c = 0. Now let's represent this equation as a function : x=-c/a=-3/2=-1.5. It is a one dimensional object in one dimensional space because there is only one dimension, length. In our example, the object has a length of -1.5, that is, a segment deferred to the left of point 0.

Now, tell me, is everything clear here? If it's not clear, we can't move on.

ZS. Find your own free time and read old Penrose's book. At least a very entertaining read.

 
Ghenadie Tumco:
That's what I'm talking about. I'm all for it too. But, I'm not for not understanding what's going on, nor am I for others not getting involved.
As one moderator here said, paraphrasing Einstein.... The point was that everyone needs to understand what's going on here.
Right, and the best way to make sure everyone understands what's going on is to present the problem through a "physical" analogy, without leading into the maze of unproven theories and constructing new problems based on them.
 
Ghenadie Tumco:

I'm just in a good mood... :) It happens.... So 90% of what I write is sarcasm.

Seriously, so many times, many have hinted, and openly told the initiator to write the rules, regulations, so that everything would be understandable to all, but, already a branch, talk about something ....

There are rules, the goals are defined in the first posts. And the fact that here are further discussions - well, you would like to be only one my post in this thread and silence? .... It's not that hard to arrange, ask the moderators to clean up a branch and that's it... And then deal with the optimization yourself, without explanations or comments.
 
How to make it clear to everyone is the initiator's job (and it's not to look for peaks and troughs on a graph, it's more difficult... :)), but from the comments, I notice that he disagrees with this.
1...151617181920212223242526272829...133
New comment
Reason: