Anonymous user
Talk:Polyspiral: Difference between revisions
m
minor edit
No edit summary |
m (minor edit) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
: The result looks exactly right to me. I don't want to be more specific about input values because I'd like people to try different possibilities. Is there anything else that you'd like me clarify? [[User:Fwend|Fwend]] ([[User talk:Fwend|talk]]) 11:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
:: If it looks right, I guess the task description was good enough for me to understand... That said, there are a variety of ways that this display could be animated, as well as a variety of other parametric differences. If your intent is to not be concerned about them, I guess I'll wait for other people to take action or comment. For now,
::: The pseudocode did contain some errors. I also made it more detailed. [[User:Fwend|Fwend]] ([[User talk:Fwend|talk]]) 12:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
==PARI/GP and gnuplot implementations.==
My comment in PARI/GP is:
"This is definitely not a polyspiral, but a very nice "multi-spiral" figure similar
to shown in zkl and in a few other languages. Also, there is a very nice and impressive
animation created in zkl, but not possible in PARI/GP."
* 1. Only J and PARI/GP (and now gnuplot) have real polyspiral pictures.
* 2. Java, Lua, and zkl - producing not a polyspiral.
I thought: What's wrong?? Not sure, but we had only 5 languages?! <br>
'''Just a few remarks:'''
* 1. Basic definition is correct and enough: A Polyspiral is a spiral made of multiple line segments.
* 2. '''Pseudo code''' is always '''"like <some language>"'''. Some real languages have no operators like
FOR - ENDFOR, WHILE - ENDWHILE, or have 2 dozens of different statements, etc.
E.g., Gnuplot has no such operators. So, it's better to avoid pseudo code.
* 3. In some languages animation is not only unpractical, but impossible. It's good to see last remark in the task.
* 4. Actually, only J and PARI/GP (v.#1) demonstrate real Polyspiral, all others show very nice multi-spiral
figures. May be, because they were following a pseudo code? Sort of the "side product" of a pseudo code?<br>
Note: I would like to keep all these implementations in this task. I'm not against them.
May be, additional task phrase could help? E.g., like: "Strange, but nice figures containing spiral(s) are welcome..."<br>
<<Note this part above was written last year, but I kept it on hold, not publishing.>><br>
<<second part 2017>><br>
* 5. In gnuplot, as you can see, I've plotted both polyspirals and a very smooth spiral (without visible "line segments").
After I've got in a few minutes a very smooth spiral I've
spent a lot of time to create a polyspiral with visible "line segments". In fact, only "plot" statement
was changed slightly. You can compare yourself (see PS0 and PS1)..
* 6. While searching for "true" polyspiral in gnuplot I made the most important discovery:
All images produced in this task by all languages '''are formally polyspirals''', but most
of them are not looking as a spiral at all.<br>
E.g., looking at the picture PS4gp.png you still can see clear a polyspiral.
But next two: PS5gp.png and PS6gp.png are not looking as a spiral at all.
PS5gp.png is the most popular picture produced by majority of languages.<br>
All these images produced in gnuplot with the same code! Only numbers for range are different.<br>
'''Conclusion'''<br>
It is better to keep any task very simple, do not describe/require extra details.
The good sample is Sierpinski triangle task. Why? Because it is simple and allows to use
any of existing multiple approaches to produce triangle.<br>
May be, it's a good idea to add in the task description something like "[polyspiral] or any other spiral-related figure". --AnatolV 20:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
| |||