see, when I say something reminds me of something else I don't mean a one-to-one equivalence at every aspect one can think of.
anyhoo, it's always a great skill to review the state-of-the-art BEFORE investing in a work/write-up/article - one of the very first things that a post-graduate program would teach you.
Nah. Being able to derive and prove easy results like this for yourself is both way faster and more reliable than trying to wade through the literature to find the equation you want.
"The following presents a fast algorithm for volume computation of a simple, closed, triangulated 3D mesh."
- we are presented something
"I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the algorithm is novel. Further research after posting reveals the paper Efficient Feature Extraction for 2D/3D Objects in Mesh Representation by Cha Zheng and Tsuhan Chen, which appears to describe the same algorithm, although the derivation is different. It was fun while it lasted!"
- there was an initial expectation, though slim, that it may be novel. then on the discovery that it wasn't, related fun time was insinuated to be over.
It’s someone’s blog post before a calculus exam. I think it’s fun to do this stuff. On your own site you can write whatever you want.
See, when I was a kid I found something I thought was great and inventive only to find that it was not only long trodden mathematics it was famous long trodden mathematics. I named it after myself for humorous value, the distinction between others who dreamed of finding some novel structure and me being solely that I did not know the famous results and conjectures in the space.
Comments
see, when I say something reminds me of something else I don't mean a one-to-one equivalence at every aspect one can think of.
anyhoo, it's always a great skill to review the state-of-the-art BEFORE investing in a work/write-up/article - one of the very first things that a post-graduate program would teach you.
Nah. Being able to derive and prove easy results like this for yourself is both way faster and more reliable than trying to wade through the literature to find the equation you want.
The article relates that this isn't about the state of the art. It's about insight gained while taking a calculus class.
"The following presents a fast algorithm for volume computation of a simple, closed, triangulated 3D mesh."
- we are presented something
"I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the algorithm is novel. Further research after posting reveals the paper Efficient Feature Extraction for 2D/3D Objects in Mesh Representation by Cha Zheng and Tsuhan Chen, which appears to describe the same algorithm, although the derivation is different. It was fun while it lasted!"
- there was an initial expectation, though slim, that it may be novel. then on the discovery that it wasn't, related fun time was insinuated to be over.
are we reading the same text?
It’s someone’s blog post before a calculus exam. I think it’s fun to do this stuff. On your own site you can write whatever you want.
See, when I was a kid I found something I thought was great and inventive only to find that it was not only long trodden mathematics it was famous long trodden mathematics. I named it after myself for humorous value, the distinction between others who dreamed of finding some novel structure and me being solely that I did not know the famous results and conjectures in the space.
https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Roshan%27s_Conjecture
I think this is quite entertaining.