3 ms·
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97 After just 5 or 6 different colours or so, which happens very so
by muyuu 15y ago
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97
After just 5 or 6 different colours or so, which happens very soon, it becomes hard to distinguish them without context. But this is not a big problem thanks to order consistency. For instance, check 57 and 58, just next to each other with the tone of 19 (second factor of 57 = 319) looking very similar to the first factor of 58 (229). The converse is also true: 3 is a similar tone to 29. But thanks to order consistency it's easy to tell which is which. I'd say the only problem with this is not being obvious, and also the ordering being somewhat confusing, as I'd expect normal writing order for numbers.
- Sondy 15y agoI have spent so much time looking at graphs, I wanted smaller to be on the bottom and to the left, as in Cartesian coordinates. Though I know it's a bit weak. The color differentiation is even worse in the photo than it is with just the yarn. And it's tricky to find a yarn with enough distinct shades.
- muyuu 15y agoThat's interesting, because in CompSci screen coordinates (and vector coordinates when programming graphics) are usually rooted at the top-left, so we have a more "consistent" natural perception of it - those of us using mainly left-to-right language scripts. Anyway, I really don't see graphs as sequences. I have my perception of cartesian graphs and sequenced lists completely separated. But the important thing here is the idea :-)