On Feb 16, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Karsten Schmidt wrote: > Yer welcome & please do let me know how this works out for you! I've > updated the gist[1] to delay more parts of the whole computation and > replace most occurrences of `reduce` with `loop` - altogether leading > to an almost 2x faster result for the worst case scenario where all > test clauses are checked. K. > > [1] https://gist.github.com/postspectacular/9021724
Hi Karsten, I've noticed that intersect-tetrahedra? is sometimes asymmetric. Here's an example with randomly generated irregular tetrahedra, but I've noticed it for regular tetrahedra as well: (def t1 [[166 560 158] [889 160 1] [95 683 998] [445 779 516]]) (def t2 [[292 823 490] [868 167 651] [190 869 459] [208 591 753]]) (intersect-tetrahedra? t1 t2) => true (intersect-tetrahedra? t2 t1) => nil Do you have any idea why this might be or how it could be fixed? Thanks, -Lee -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
