3 ms·
The number of nodes in your tree is countable. The number of paths in your tree is uncountable. In the infinitely subdivided pixel case, a node in the tree cor
by cjhopman 12y ago
The number of nodes in your tree is countable. The number of paths in your tree is uncountable.
In the infinitely subdivided pixel case, a node in the tree corresponds to an x,y position at a particular depth (or, even better, the set of pixels within the square at x, y at that depth). That node, though, does not correspond to a pixel because that area is subdivided into many, many more pixels.
- Dylan16807 12y agoInteresting way of putting it. So if we look at the problem as an infinite-pixel screen with backwards compatibility, then each pixel is a finite node with subnodes for increased resolution. If we look at the problem as an infinite-pixel screen that has a more pure layout without overlapping addressing, then each pixel can only be reached with an infinite path. I for one prefer the backwards compatibility, and think it makes more sense in the context of HD->4k->8k. But that's pretty hilarious if the API for the pixels changes how many you have.