4 ms·

The article is arguing mathematical inaccuracy, you're arguing the limitations of compressing an infinite abstract concept on a finite field. You're not wrong,

The article is arguing mathematical inaccuracy, you're arguing the limitations of compressing an infinite abstract concept on a finite field. You're not wrong, but it's like someone showing proof that a person can't fly unassisted and then responding with "well dogs can't meow".

mindslight 3y ago
But the mathematical inaccuracy is caused by the limitations of compressing an abstract concept on a finite field (of a different base abstraction). So no, it doesn't seem like your wacky analogy at all.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  No, the Bézier inaccuracy has nothing to do with rasterization. Did you even read the article? They're saying that your arc for your circle will be incorrect before it's ever put into a concrete implementation. In other words, there's a base level inaccuracy and then your rasterization brings a whole new, different inaccuracy into play. So yes, my "wacky analogy" is exactly apropos here.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    You seem to be asserting some categorical difference between Bezier curves and pixels, likely because most output devices work in terms of pixels. But they're actually both just drawing primitives, and neither one is capable of representing perfect circles. > the Bézier inaccuracy has nothing to do with rasterization Obviously, because rasterization refers to pixels and has nothing to do with Bezier curves. On the other hand, that inaccuracy has everything to do with Bezierization. > there's a base level inaccuracy and then your rasterization brings a whole new, different inaccuracy into play. Yes, stacking two inexact transformations will result in more inaccuracy than a single one. Since you seem to be attached to your analogy - it's more like a person making the argument that humans can't fly unassisted, while showing a picture of a pig as an example of flying, and I'm pointing out that pigs can't fly either.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      You can post as large a wall of text as you like, your point is inaccurate regardless.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        no, you

mindslight 3y ago

But the mathematical inaccuracy is caused by the limitations of compressing an abstract concept on a finite field (of a different base abstraction). So no, it doesn't seem like your wacky analogy at all.

deaddodo 3y ago
No, the Bézier inaccuracy has nothing to do with rasterization. Did you even read the article? They're saying that your arc for your circle will be incorrect before it's ever put into a concrete implementation. In other words, there's a base level inaccuracy and then your rasterization brings a whole new, different inaccuracy into play. So yes, my "wacky analogy" is exactly apropos here.
- mindslight 3y ago
  You seem to be asserting some categorical difference between Bezier curves and pixels, likely because most output devices work in terms of pixels. But they're actually both just drawing primitives, and neither one is capable of representing perfect circles. > the Bézier inaccuracy has nothing to do with rasterization Obviously, because rasterization refers to pixels and has nothing to do with Bezier curves. On the other hand, that inaccuracy has everything to do with Bezierization. > there's a base level inaccuracy and then your rasterization brings a whole new, different inaccuracy into play. Yes, stacking two inexact transformations will result in more inaccuracy than a single one. Since you seem to be attached to your analogy - it's more like a person making the argument that humans can't fly unassisted, while showing a picture of a pig as an example of flying, and I'm pointing out that pigs can't fly either.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    You can post as large a wall of text as you like, your point is inaccurate regardless.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      no, you