3 ms·
No, n does not need to be huge, n=8 is high enough.
by tantalor 8y ago
No, n does not need to be huge, n=8 is high enough.
- Retric 8y agoIn this context 8 is a huge number.
- cultus 8y agoNot at all. There are plenty of circumstances in all kinds of numerics where one would want points on the sphere in high dimensions. It's not just a geometric object that has limited practical value for d>3. It is the set of points where the norm is unity, which is a pretty fundamental concept in all sorts of places.
- Retric 8y agoNot as part of a graphic's library. You might want to do 4d or 5d. But past that is very unlikely. In terms of actually solving to proble you just want a vector random distance and a function that to map random distance to actual distance. But if you never deal in 6+ dimensions that's a waste of time.
- cultus 8y agoWell, not in graphics libraries obviously, but it comes up quite a bit in other areas. Vectors with a norm of unity are just a fundamentally important set.
- tantalor 8y agoWho said anything about graphics?
- Retric 8y ago> While working through Peter Shirley’s Ray Tracing in One Weekend (http://in1weekend.blogspot.com/2016/01/ray-tracing-in-one-weekend.html http://in1weekend.blogspot.com/2016/01/ray-tracing-in-one-we...) Which is where that method was used.
- CamTin 8y agoOptimizing for anything more (or less) than three dimensions is premature.
- talltimtom 8y agoHi boss, we didn’t move those boxes, because the crane only carries up to 8 tons, and the boxes weigh 3, so we’ve started building a new crane system instead that will scale to lift arbitrarily large weights. I’ll probably be a couple of years before we get to actually moving the boxes. When your problem is n=3, anything larger than 3 is “huge”.