4 ms·
A note on the architecture from the demo: The vast majority of ancient buildings follows quite simple procedural methods that only very recently got reverse en
by no_identd 9y ago
A note on the architecture from the demo:
The vast majority of ancient buildings follows quite simple procedural methods that only very recently got reverse engineered:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francisco_Javier_Roldan-Medina/publication/283490185_Unraveling_the_Classic_Proportions_Through_the_Anthropometric_Analysis_of_the_Architectural_Heritage_The_Case_of_the_Pantheon/links/563a4dd908ae405111a5841f/Unraveling-the-Classic-Proportions-Through-the-Anthropometric-Analysis-of-the-Architectural-Heritage-The-Case-of-the-Pantheon.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francisco_Javier_Roldan...
(I suspect this method also permits approximating the plastic number [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_number ], but so far it seems nobody has figured out a way to do so yet. I mention this due to the architectural relevance of the plastic number.)
I speculate that leveraging this fact could likely permit even more complex architecture in demos. (And, to mention an off topic point, it likely has some relevance for automating UI layouting.)
- arca_vorago 9y agoWow, thanks for these links, I had no idea about plastic number theory in geometry. So cool.
- AlotOfReading 9y agoSo many issues. First, that paper doesn't claim what you say it does. Second, it's just not a great paper. Even if we accept the sketchy premise, it fails to distinguish overfitting from a successful test. Numbers of the form (a+b*sqrt(2) can approximate almost any number to within 0.03 units, yet there's no discussion of fitting errors to address it. You should not take papers like these as fact.