Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #6942
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Tunnelling and pathfinding |
| Date | 2016-09-29 01:00 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <8760pfa832.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <9937e5f0-bdca-49dc-b228-6fdd0b68f3c8@googlegroups.com> <878tulidnz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <26334da4-49fb-4dd3-bf0f-fb8938ef85f9@googlegroups.com> <nsh028$qjo$1@dont-email.me> |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 23/09/16 08:43, malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote: > > <snip> > >> So the tunnel must connect the two rooms is a path is possible, >> it must not touch any other set pixels, loops are maybe acceptable >> and small expanded sections, but it mustn't degenerately expand >> the entire space or create excessive loops. Paths must be 4- >> connected (no diagonal moves allowed) and the background must also >> remain 4-connected. >> >> But ultimately the criteria are aesthetic rather than strictly >> mathematical. > > I'm kind of late to this party, for which I apologise. > > One possible fitness measure would be the number of turns in the > tunnel. Since only NSEW turns are allowed, they are easy to > categorise, so they should be fairly easy to count, too. > > Let us assume that a perfectly straight path between A and B is > possible. 0 turns. > > If that is the case, then the minimum number of turns other than 0 is > 4, I think: > > --+ +-- > | | > +-+ > > And from now on, if the direction of approach to B is fixed, then I > think I'm right in saying that the number of turns must now be a > multiple of 2, as any deviation from straight (one turn) requires an > odd number of turns to get it back on track: > > +--+ > | | > --+ | +-- > | | > +-+ > > > If you want something that's quite wiggly but not /too/ wiggly, > measure the Hausdorff dimension of the candidate curve, and reject it > if it's too high or too low. You have thus reduced the problem to the > trivial one of calculating the Hausdorff dimension of an arbitrary > curve. <cough> I don't see the connection with Hausdorff dimension. Surely, since a discrete lattice is assumed, the dimension of the curve will be 1? Or is there some interesting metric being applied here that I've missed? -- Ben.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Tunnelling and pathfinding malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com - 2016-09-20 01:05 -0700
Re: Tunnelling and pathfinding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-21 14:29 +0100
Re: Tunnelling and pathfinding malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com - 2016-09-23 00:43 -0700
Re: Tunnelling and pathfinding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-23 19:31 +0100
Re: Tunnelling and pathfinding Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-28 18:53 +0100
Re: Tunnelling and pathfinding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-29 01:00 +0100
Re: Tunnelling and pathfinding Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-30 07:35 +0100
Re: Tunnelling and pathfinding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-30 11:50 +0100
Re: Tunnelling and pathfinding malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com - 2016-10-10 01:55 -0700
csiph-web