Search Results

Search found 1486 results on 60 pages for 'hexagon theory'.

Page 2/60 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Theory: "Lexical Encoding"

    - by _ande_turner_
    I am using the term "Lexical Encoding" for my lack of a better one. A Word is arguably the fundamental unit of communication as opposed to a Letter. Unicode tries to assign a numeric value to each Letter of all known Alphabets. What is a Letter to one language, is a Glyph to another. Unicode 5.1 assigns more than 100,000 values to these Glyphs currently. Out of the approximately 180,000 Words being used in Modern English, it is said that with a vocabulary of about 2,000 Words, you should be able to converse in general terms. A "Lexical Encoding" would encode each Word not each Letter, and encapsulate them within a Sentence. // An simplified example of a "Lexical Encoding" String sentence = "How are you today?"; int[] sentence = { 93, 22, 14, 330, QUERY }; In this example each Token in the String was encoded as an Integer. The Encoding Scheme here simply assigned an int value based on generalised statistical ranking of word usage, and assigned a constant to the question mark. Ultimately, a Word has both a Spelling & Meaning though. Any "Lexical Encoding" would preserve the meaning and intent of the Sentence as a whole, and not be language specific. An English sentence would be encoded into "...language-neutral atomic elements of meaning ..." which could then be reconstituted into any language with a structured Syntactic Form and Grammatical Structure. What are other examples of "Lexical Encoding" techniques? If you were interested in where the word-usage statistics come from : http://www.wordcount.org

    Read the article

  • Discrete problem of probability theory [closed]

    - by calejero
    A jury consists of 12 persons each of which has, before the trial started, a probability of 0.4 to vote in favor of the defendant's innocence. During the trial, the lawyer has a probability of 0.6 to change the mind of each juror who was biased against the accused. How likely is the defendant to be acquitted if he needs 10 votes in favor?

    Read the article

  • A Grand Unified Theory of AI

    A new approach unites two prevailing but often opposed strains in the history of AI research Artificial intelligence - Physics - Alternative - Quantum Mechanics - Quantum Field Theory

    Read the article

  • The theory of evolution applied to software

    - by Michel Grootjans
    I recently realized the many parallels you can draw between the theory of evolution and evolving software. Evolution is not the proverbial million monkeys typing on a million typewriters, where one of them comes up with the complete works of Shakespeare. We would have noticed by now, since the proverbial monkeys are now blogging on the Internet ;-) One of the main ideas of the theory of evolution is the balance between random mutations and natural selection. Random mutations happen all the time: millions of mutations over millions of years. Most of them are totally useless. Some of them are beneficial to the evolved species. Natural selection favors the beneficially mutated species. Less beneficial mutations die off. The mutated rabbit doesn't have to be faster than the fox. It just has to be faster than the other rabbits.   Theory of evolution Evolving software Random mutations happen all the time. Most of these mutations are so bad, the new species dies off, or cannot reproduce. Developers write new code all the time. New ideas come up during the act of writing software. The really bad ones don't get past the stage of idea. The bad ones don't get committed to source control. Natural selection favors the beneficial mutated species Good ideas and new code gets discussed in group during informal peer review. Less than good code gets refactored. Enhanced code makes it more readable, maintainable... A good set of traits makes the species superior to others. It becomes widespread A good design tends to make it easier to add new features, easier to understand the current implementations, easier to optimize for performance...thus superior. The best designs get carried over from project to project. They appear in blogs, articles and books about principles, patterns and practices.   Of course the act of writing software is deliberate. This can hardly be called random mutations. Though it sometimes might seem that code evolves through a will of its own ;-) Does this mean that evolving software (evolution) is better than a big design up front (creationism)? Not necessarily. It's a false idea to think that a project starts from scratch and everything evolves from there. Everyone carries his experience of what works and what doesn't. Up front design is necessary, but is best kept simple and minimal, just enough to get you started. Let the good experiences and ideas help to drive the process, whether they come from you or from others, from past experience or from the most junior developer on your team. Once again, balance is the keyword. Balance design up front with evolution on a daily basis. How do you know what balance is right? Through your own experience of what worked and what didn't (here's evolution again). Notes: The evolution of software can quickly degenerate without discipline. TDD is a discipline that leaves little to chance on that part. Write your test to describe the new behavior. Write just enough code to make it behave as specified. Refactor to evolve the code to a higher standard. The responsibility of good design rests continuously on each developers' shoulders. Promiscuous pair programming helps quickly spreading the design to the whole team.

    Read the article

  • How to draw/manage a hexagon grid?

    - by W.N.
    I've read this article: generating/creating hexagon grid in C . But look like both the author and answerer have already abandoned it. v(hexagonSide - hexagonWidth * hexagonWidth): What's hexagonSide and hexagonWidth? Isn't it will < 0 (so square root can't be calculated). And, can I put a hexagon into a rectangle? I need to create a grid like this: One more thing, how can I arrange my array to store data, as well as get which cells are next to one cell? I have never been taught about hexagon, so I know nothing about it, but I can easily learn new thing, so if you can explain or give me a clue, I may do it myself.

    Read the article

  • Resources on concepts/theory behind GUI development?

    - by ShrimpCrackers
    I was wondering if there were any resources that explain concepts/theory behind GUI development. I don't mean a resource that explains how to use a GUI library, but rather how to create your own widgets. For example a resource that explains different methods on how to implement scrollable listboxes. I ask because I have an idea for a game tool where I would like to create my own widgets and let users drag and drop them onto some kind of form. How do GUI libraries usually draw widgets? I'm not sure if reskinning widgets from a GUI library fits my needs, since widget behavior needs to be dynamic based on user interaction.

    Read the article

  • Book Review (Book 10) - The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood

    - by BuckWoody
    This is a continuation of the books I challenged myself to read to help my career - one a month, for year. You can read my first book review here, and the entire list is here. The book I chose for March 2012 was: The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood by James Gleick. I was traveling at the end of last month so I’m a bit late posting this review here. Why I chose this book: My personal belief about computing is this: All computing technology is simply re-arranging data. We take data in, we manipulate it, and we send it back out. That’s computing. I had heard from some folks about this book and it’s treatment of data. I heard that it dealt with the basics of data - and the semantics of data, information and so on. It also deals with the earliest forms of history of information, which fascinates me. It’s similar I was told, to GEB which a favorite book of mine as well, so that was a bonus. Some folks I talked to liked it, some didn’t - so I thought I would check it out. What I learned: I liked the book. It was longer than I thought - took quite a while to read, even though I tend to read quickly. This is the kind of book you take your time with. It does in fact deal with the earliest forms of human interaction and the basics of data. I learned, for instance, that the genesis of the binary communication system is based in the invention of telegraph (far-writing) codes, and that the earliest forms of communication were expensive. In fact, many ciphers were invented not to hide military secrets, but to compress information. A sort of early “lol-speak” to keep the cost of transmitting data low! I think the comparison with GEB is a bit over-reaching. GEB is far more specific, fanciful and so on. In fact, this book felt more like something fro Richard Dawkins, and tended to wander around the subject quite a bit. I imagine the author doing his research and writing each chapter as a book that followed on from the last one. This is what possibly bothered those who tended not to like it, I think. Towards the middle of the book, I think the author tended to be a bit too fragmented even for me. He began to delve into memes, biology and more - I think he might have been better off breaking that off into another work. The existentialism just seemed jarring. All in all, I liked the book. I recommend it to any technical professional, specifically ones involved with data technology in specific. And isn’t that all of us? :)

    Read the article

  • Prove that the set of regular languages is a proper subset of the set of the context-free languages

    - by David Relihan
    I was brushing up (not homework)on some computation-theory and came accross this problem: How can you prove that the set of regular languages is a proper subset of the set of the context-free languages. Now I know a language is regular iff it is accepted by a finite automaton. And I know a language is context-free iff it is accepted by a pushdown automaton. But I'm not sure of what solution is.

    Read the article

  • Sets, Surrogates, Normalisation, Referential Integrity - the Theory with example Scaling considerati

    - by tonyrogerson
    The Slides and Demo's for the SQLBits session I did today at SQL Bits in London are attached. The Agenda was... Thinking in Sets Surrogate Keys ú What they are ú Comparison NEWID, NEWSEQUENTIALID, IDENTITY ú Fragmenation Normalisation ú An introduction – what is it? Why use it? ú Joins – Pre-filter problems, index intersection ú Fragmentation again Referential Integrity ú Optimiser -> Query rewrite ú Locking considerations around Foreign Keys and Declarative RI (using Triggers)...(read more)

    Read the article

  • The Grand Unified Framework Theory

    Tom Janssens left a comment: What still bugs me is that we do not have a unified pattern for all .net dev (using modelbinders and icommand for example...) But, Tom we are pretty close. At least as close as we should be, I think. With .NET there are plenty of low level patterns we can reuse regardless of the application platform or architecture. Stuff like: Asynchronous programming with events or the TPL. Object queries with LINQ. Resource management with IDispose. At a higher...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • PageRank is the Best Indicator of Competition Strength For a Keyword in SEO - New Verifiable Theory

    The major argument against PageRank in SEO is that pages with zero PageRank can be in the top positions even for highly competitive keywords. However, we are left with requiring an explanation as to why "PageRank is Google's view of the importance of this page." It becomes apparent that either Google is misleading us or we have all been misinterpreting Google's statement. From extensive evaluation of the top Google search engine results pages for hundreds of keywords, the author observed that those high positioned web pages with PageRanks of zero have a home page with higher PageRanks, usually three or more.

    Read the article

  • 2-D Lighting Theory

    - by Richard
    I am writing a rogue-like 'zombie' management game. The game map will be similar to Prison Architect. A top-down 50 X 50 grid. I want to implemented a day night cycle and during the night I would like the player to be able to position lights. I would like to be able to lighten and dark to whole map to display the day and night cycle. Then lights would be a circle of light blocked by game entities such as walls, players, trees etc. How would I achieve and what is the standard way of achieving this?

    Read the article

  • Context Free Language Question (Pumping Lemma)

    - by Maixy
    I know this isn't directly related to programming, but I was wondering if anyone know how to apply the pumping lemma to the following proof: Show that L={(a^n)(b^n)(c^m) : n!=m} is not a context free language I'm pretty confident with applying pumping lemmas, but this one is really irking me. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Convert a post-order binary tree traversal index to an level-order (breadth-first) index

    - by strfry
    Assuming a complete binary tree, each node can be adressed with the position it appears in a given tree traversal algorithm. For example, the node indices of a simple complete tree with height 3 would look like this: breadth first (aka level-order): 0 / \ 1 2 / \ / \ 3 4 5 6 post-order dept first: 6 / \ 2 5 / \ / \ 0 1 3 4 The height of the tree and an index in the post-order traversal is given. How can i calculate the breadth first index from this information?

    Read the article

  • Graph Theory: How to compute closeness centrality for each node in a set of data?

    - by Jordan
    I'd like to learn how to apply network theory to my own cache of relational data. I'm trying to build a demo of a new way of browsing a music library, using network theory, that I think would make for a very intuitive and useful way of finding the right song at any given time. I have all the data (artists as nodes, similarity from 0 to 1 between each artist and those it is related to) and I can already program, but I don't know how to actually calculate the centrality of a node from that. I've spent a while trying to email different professors at my school but no one seems to know where I can learn this. I hope someone's done something similar. Thanks in advance you guys! ~Jordan

    Read the article

  • Open Source 2D Game Engine that supports Hexagon Maps for .NET

    - by Fred F.
    Hello, I cannot find a 2D game engine to create hexagon maps for .net. The best I can find is Xconq (http://sourceforge.net/projects/xconq/) and pygame. Does anybody where I can find any? preferrably one like xconq. Thank you for your time and effort. I really apprecate it. Edit: I would like to have feature of a strategic nature. Like adding custom AIs, path finding, etc. Xcong is an engine for turn-based strategy games.

    Read the article

  • Collision detection on a 2D hexagonal grid

    - by SundayMonday
    I'm making a casual grid-based 2D iPhone game using Cocos2D. The grid is a "staggered" hex-like grid consisting of uniformly sized and spaced discs. It looks something like this. I've stored the grid in a 2D array. Also I have a concept of "surrounding" grid cells. Namely the six grid cells surrounding a particular cell (except those on the boundries which can have less than six). Anyways I'm testing some collision detection and it's not working out as well as I had planned. Here's how I currently do collision detection for a moving disc that's approaching the stationary group of discs: Calculate ij-coordinates of grid cell closest to moving cell using moving cell's xy-position Get list of surrounding grid cells using ij-coordinates Examine the surrounding cells. If they're all empty then no collision If we have some non-empty surrounding cells then compare the distance between the disc centers to some minimum distance required for a collision If there's a collision then place the moving disc in grid cell ij So this works but not too well. I've considered a potentially simpler brute force approach where I just compare the moving disc to all stationary discs at each step of the game loop. This is probably feasible in terms of performance since the stationary disc count is 300 max. If not then some space-partitioning data structure could be used however that feels too complex. What are some common approaches and best practices to collision detection in a game like this?

    Read the article

  • Finding shortest path on a hexagonal grid

    - by Timothy Mayes
    I'm writing a turn based game that has some simulation elements. One task i'm hung up on currently is with path finding. What I want to do is, each turn, move an ai adventurer one tile closer to his target using his current x,y and his target x,y. In trying to figure this out myself I can determine 4 directions no problem by using dx = currentX - targetY dy = currentY - targetY but I'm not sure how to determine which of the 6 directions is actually the "best" or "shortest" route. For example the way its setup currently I use East, West, NE, NW, SE, SW but to get to the NE tile i move East then NW instead of just moving NW. I hope this wasn't all rambling. Even just a link or two to get me started would be nice. Most of the info i've found is on drawing the grids and groking the wierd coordinate system needed. Thanks in advance Tim

    Read the article

  • Is it better to hard code data or find an algorithm?

    - by OghmaOsiris
    I've been working on a boardgame that has a hex grid as the board (the upper right grid in the image below) Since the board will never change and the spaces on the board will always be linked to the same other spaces around it, should I just hard code every space with the values that I need? Or should I use various algorithms to calculate links and traversals? To be more specific, my board game is a 4 player game where each player has a 5x5x5x5x5x5 hex grid (again, the upper right grid in th eimage above). The object is to get from the bottom of the grid to the top, with various obstacles in the way, and each players being able to attack eachother from the edge of their grid onto other players based on a range multiplier. Since the players grid will never change and the distance of any arbitrary space from the edge of the grid will always be the same, should I just hard code this number into each of the spaces, or should I still use a breadth first search algorithm when players are attacking? The only con I can think of for hard coding everything is that I'm going to code 9+ 2(5+6+7+8) = 61 individual cells. Is there anything else that I'm missing that I should consider using more complex algorithms?

    Read the article

  • Inconsistent movement / line-of-sight around obstacles on a hexagonal grid

    - by Darq
    In a roguelike game I've been working on, one of my core design goals has been to allow the player to "Play the game, not the grid." In essence, I want the player's positioning to be tactical because of elements in the game world, not simply because some grid tiles are more advantageous than others, in relation to enemies. I am fine with world geometry not being realistic, but it needs to be consistent. In this process I have ran into most of the common problems (Square tiles? Diagonal movement, LOS, corner cases, etc.) and have moved to a hexagonal tile grid. For the most part this has been great, and I've not had too many inconsistencies. Recently however I have been stumped by the following: Points A and B are both distance 4 from the player (red lines). Line-of-sight to both are blocked by walls (black tiles). However, due to the hexagonal grid, A can be reached in 4 moves, whereas B requires 5 moves (blue lines). On a hex grid, "shortest path" seems divorced from "direct path", there may be multiple shortest paths to any point, but there is only one direct path (or two in some situations). This is fine, geometry need not be realistic. However this also seems inconsistent, similar obstacles are more effective in some positions than in others. A player running away from an enemy should be able to run in any direction, increasing the distance between the two actors. However when placing obstacles or traps between themselves and enemies, the player is best served by running in one of the six directions that don't have multiple shortest paths. Is there a way to rationalise this? Am I missing something that makes this behaviour consistent? Or is there a way to make this behaviour consistent? I am most certainly over-thinking this, but as it is one of my goals, I should do it due diligence.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >