[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?
From: |
Juan Pablo Carbajal |
Subject: |
Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop? |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Aug 2017 08:17:22 +0200 |
> I tried both of your algorithms and have no deeper insight into the Hilbert
> curves, but I think your algorithm computes "more" than you expected. For n
> = 2^2 I get using [1] 16 (x,y) coordinates and using [2] 256 complex
> coordinates. Plotting both images shows me that [2] created a much higher
> order Hilbert curve.
Yes, one algorithm takes the size of the matrix the other just the order
for the recursive one you need to pass 2^n, for the non-recursive ones just n.
- [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?, JuanPi, 2017/08/05
- Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?, siko1056, 2017/08/06
- Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?,
Juan Pablo Carbajal <=
- Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?, Juan Pablo Carbajal, 2017/08/07
- Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?, siko1056, 2017/08/07
- Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?, Juan Pablo Carbajal, 2017/08/07
- Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?, Julien Bect, 2017/08/07
- Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?, siko1056, 2017/08/07
- Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?, Juan Pablo Carbajal, 2017/08/07
- Re: [OF miscellaneous] Hilbert curve: recursion faster than loop?, Juan Pablo Carbajal, 2017/08/07