Hi Jim. > I wasn't sure why you isolated that term out there instead of just > grouping it with the rest of the numerator - is there a danger of > overflow if you multiply it before you do the division? If so, then > that is fine since it doesn't actually affect the number of fp ops so > it should be the same performance.
I'm not sure if there's a danger of overflow, but the numbers there do tend to be large, so I wanted to be safe. > In #2, you have a bunch of "I'() || B'()" which I read as "the slope > of the derivative (i.e. acceleration) is equal", don't you really mean > "I() || B()" which would mean the original curves should be parallel? > Otherwise you could say "I'() == B'()", but I think you want to show > parallels because that shows how you can use the dxy1,dxy4 values as > the parallel equivalents. Not really. I've updated the comment explaining what || does, and it should be clearer now. Basically, A(t) || B(t) means that vectors A(t) and B(t) are parallel (i.e. A(t) = c*B(t), for some nonzero t), not that curves A and B are parallel at t. > so it works out the same either way. Fun... Yeah - if one is consistent with one's definitions and if the algebra is followed mechanically the signs take care of themselves. > No, the existing stuff is clean and works fine so let's leave it - for > now at the very least... Sure. I just meant that when I have some free time in the future I'll implement this other idea just to satisfy my curiosity. I doubt it will work better than what we have though (or work at all). Regards, Denis.
