Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/02/04/22:11:11
>One should be rigorous when one can. Your first definition was
inaccurate,
>period. (BTW, I make a living designing algorithms, math was just my first
>love).
:Maybe you're too much into analytic geometry. If you replace the 1
:with any constant value, his first definition is exact. Not quite
:suitable for any computer algorithm, true, but still
:mathematically/geometrically exact.
If I say the area of a square is 1, is that the definition of the area of a
square? Or just the
definition of 1 of infinitely many different squares? He defined 1
ellipse, not all ellipses (or
is it ellipsi?). And actually, even replacing it with a constant is not
exact since there are
no exact measures in our world... but don't get me started.
- Raw text -