Talk:Polyspiral: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Polyspiral (view source)

Revision as of 18:40, 1 April 2017

5 bytes added , 7 years ago

m

minor edit

Anonymous user

rosettacode>AnatolV

Revision as of 20:31, 11 January 2017 (view source) rosettacode>AnatolV m (minor fixes) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 18:40, 1 April 2017 (view source) rosettacode>AnatolV m (minor edit)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 14: * 1. Only J and PARI/GP (and now gnuplot) have real polyspiral pictures. * 2. Java, Lua, and zkl - producing not a polyspiral. I thought: ~~Whats~~What's wrong?? Not sure, but we had only 5 languages?! <br> '''Just a few remarks:''' * 1. Basic definition is correct and enough: A Polyspiral is a spiral made of multiple line segments. Line 28: <<second part 2017>><br> * 5. In ~~Gnuplot~~gnuplot, as you can see, I've plotted both polyspirals and a very smooth spiral (without visible "line segments"). After I've got in a few minutes a very smooth spiral I've spent a lot of time to create a polyspiral with visible "line segments". In fact, only "plot" statement was changed slightly. You can compare yourself (see PS0 and PS1).. * 6. While searching for "true" polyspiral in ~~Gnuplot~~gnuplot I made the most important discovery: All images produced in this task by all languages '''are formally polyspirals''', but most of them are not looking as a spiral at all.<br> Line 41: '''Conclusion'''<br> It is better to keep any task very simple, do not describe/require extra details. The good sample is Sierpinski ~~carpet~~triangle task. Why? Because it is simple and allows to use any of existing multiple approaches to produce ~~carpet~~triangle.<br> May be, it's a good idea to add in the task description something like "[polyspiral] or any other spiral-related figure". --AnatolV 20:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)