19:20 <@matches> I'm running out of epsilons
19:21 <@matches> If I represent the amount of time I have left on the project as a floating point number, then a single second is below the epsilon for floats, therefore each second will not affect the amount of time I have left, therefore I will never have to finish
19:21 * matches resists the urge to verify if a single second is actually below epsilon or not
+--- Day changed Tue Oct 07 2014
+13:52 <@matches> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5577902
+13:52 <@matches> Uh oh
+13:57 < sulix> We did look at that briefly, IIRC, but ignored it because it was only integers, I think.
+16:05 <@matches> Yeah, although a rational is just two integers
+16:05 <@matches> But too late now
+16:05 <@matches> I am not making progress
+16:05 <@matches> I have deleted words
+16:05 <@matches> That is not progress
+16:05 <@matches> (I had 8000 words, I require 6000 words...)
+16:06 <@matches> I should probably get some performance tests done, but every time I try there ends up being something I have to code first
+17:25 <@matches> I have a somewhat less awful explanation of number representations that still manages to carefully not actually define a number
+17:26 <@matches> I wonder if I need a citation though
+17:28 <@matches> Does it classify as "blindingly obvious" or "known since the dawn of time" that you can write numbers as "\sum_{i=-\infty}^{\infty} d_i B^i" where "d_i" and B are also numbers (it's so meta)
+17:28 <@matches> You're the maths guy, surely there is a paper
+17:29 <@matches> If it's blindingly obvious, I probably shouldn't state it, so I guess it's not blindingly obvious...
+17:29 <@matches> But on the other hand it's just a fancy way of talking about what you learn in primary school...
+17:43 <@matches> http://thecodelesscode.com/case/137
+17:50 <@matches> Dear goodness it's hideous
+20:08 < sulix> matches: It's actually kind-of more complicated than that.
+20:08 < sulix> You might find it interesting to look up Cantor's diagonal argument.
+20:09 < sulix> (Which is technically a proof that the size of the set of rationals is different to the size of the set of reals, but it uses the idea of infinite sequences of digits)
+20:09 < sulix> For example \sum_{i=-\infty}^{\infty} d_i B^i actually gives you the reals, not the rationals.
+20:10 < sulix> But you have to be super-careful about what "infinity" is.
+21:11 <@matches> Did I say Rational
+21:11 <@matches> I thought I said real
+21:11 <@matches> No I said "number"
+21:11 <@matches> Wel
+21:12 <@matches> I will look up Cantor's diagonal bishop
+21:12 <@matches> I mean argument
+21:13 <@matches> But basically anything you are going to represent on a computer is either written as that sum or based on components that are
+21:13 <@matches> A float is like changing where the "0" is
+21:13 <@matches> An integer is starting the sum from zero
+21:14 <@matches> An arbitrary integer uses the same sum, but the digits are smaller integers
+21:14 <@matches> (In another base, and then the base of the arbitrary integer is 2^{N})
+21:14 <@matches> I don't know how much I am expected to explain this sort of thing
+21:15 <@matches> And of course a rational is two integers written using the sum
+21:15 <@matches> Infinity is...
+21:16 <@matches> Yeah
+21:17 <@matches> Screw that, if people don't like me writing a number as an infinite sequence of digits I will point out the name of my major (and then hope they don't ask why I am doing a project about numbers considering my major)
+21:17 <@matches> Other things I don't really want to include in my report are the 4 operations for floats
+21:18 <@matches> But I feel like some sort of explanation of why "(x - view.x) / view.w" totally dies
+21:18 <@matches> Is needed
+21:18 <@matches> I'll commit "grid.svg", you might find it useful
+21:18 < sulix> "If view.w is zero, you're in trouble."
+21:18 <@matches> Yeah
+21:19 < sulix> I'm sure grid.svg will lead me to much confusion!
+21:19 <@matches> No it's really cool
+21:19 <@matches> It is a 1px by 1px grid
+21:19 < sulix> But how will I know where I am?
+21:19 <@matches> So, because we add SVGs scaled to the view, whenever you insert it the view should be black
+21:19 <@matches> Ah
+21:20 <@matches> But if you zoom in, you can resolve the lines that are 1px apart in the original view
+21:20 * sulix really needs to get on that "adding SVGs scaled to the view" thing.
+21:21 <@matches> So, if you add it scaled to the view at some point and you *don't* see total blackness, it's showing you the locations in the document that can be represented when scaled to the view
+21:21 <@matches> ... If that makes any sense
+21:22 < sulix> Ah.... that's cool.
+21:22 <@matches> For example using single precision, at {5,5,1e-6,1e-6} you only get 4 lines (and also, the distance between the lines is the amount you need to move the mouse in order to translate)
+21:22 <@matches> Yeah, and hopefully it will be good for my bounds measurement test
+21:23 <@matches> I know it's a shitty measure but it's better than just saying "This picture looks funny!"
+21:23 <@matches> "This graph indicates how funny a picture will look"
+21:23 <@matches> I feel like graphs make things *look* more legitimate even if they aren't actually
git.ucc.asn.au / ipdf / documents.git / blobdiff
UCC git Repository :: git.ucc.asn.au