![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This is my version of a long stub. Someone else should fill in the details, I'm not a specialist. Loisel 00:38 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
Just a short comment on the link "Geomtry in action": 99% of the links on the "Geomtry in action" - Site are dead. I know, a link like "Geometry in action" sounds good, but it's useless if none of the links on a site dedicated to collecting links works. I suggest deleting the "Geomtry in action" - Link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.39.59 ( talk) 12:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
hello- I just added four references for books on the topic. two points to note.
If someone disagrees, and feels such information doesn't have a place here ( it goes go out of date quickly) -- by all means, pull it out, but it's handy to point readers to more external sources of information, IMHO.
Adking80 22:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Mikkalai, thanks for changing the 3 branches to only 2. And I have no intention to start "moving other topics elsewhere" without a lot of discussion. That's why I placed the proposal in the article, and started this discussion here. Now, we only have 2 b Therefore, I agree that this article should not be split, but I believe that the division using the two terms that occur only in Wikipedia is not adequate. It leads the reader to believe that the separation into these two branches is widely accepted, but in fact it is only the way by which the wikipedia article is organized. I think that a broad description of computational geometry, followed by several examples, with some explanation of the different "flavors" they have, is better. Let's see if more people give feedback and we can decide what to do about it. Gfonsecabr 21:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)ranches (unless someone oposes and recreates the 3rd one): Combinatorial Computational Geometry and Numerical Computational Geometry. I agree with you that "Numeri Are there any references that divide computational geometry into the 3 areas listed in this article? Essentially all the modern use I see of computational geometry refers to what is described as combinatorial computational geometry. Therefore, I believe this page should talk only about what is described as combinatorial computational geometry. The other topics can be moved to other pages (as stubs, since there is very little information anyway). Gfonsecabr 02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that most of what is considered computational geometry nowadays fits in the Combinatorial Computational Geometry branch. Nevertheless, I also agree with Goodman and O'Rourke preface to Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry, which says:
..."computational geometry," which referred not long ago to simply the design and analysis of geometric algorithms, has in recent years broadened its scope, and now means the study of geometric problems from a computational point of view, including also computational convexity, computational topology, and questions involving the combinatorial complexity of arrangements and polyhedra
The proposed in the article definition of computational geometry as study of algorithms to solve problems stated in the terms of geometry raises questions. The so definined computational geometry obviously includes algorithms of geometric constructions since they are also algorithms to solve problems also stated in the terms of geometry. However, the article does not mention such algoithms.
Thus, either the article has to be augmented by mentioning such algorithms or the definition has to be modified.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.248.0.45 ( talk • contribs)
Why does the article not cite the source of the current definition ? Where is it from ? Who is the author ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.248.0.45 ( talk • contribs)
The definition should be irrespective of whether it is in computer science, or on Earth, or on the Moon or elsewhere. Also the definition should be irrespective of whether it is possible to get money for such research or not. What you say amounts to the following: Computational geometry is a study of such algorithms to solve problems stated in the terms of geometry, which can be performed by contemporary digital computers AND for which one can get financial support. Right ?
But then we have the following problem: none of algorithms of computational geometry can be performed by contemporary digital computers. All these algorithms assume absolute precision of computation. As soon as the finite precision is taken into account, all the algorithms fall apart. They do not guarantee obtaining the desired results or even their approximations.
Thus, the definition should be further specified as follows: computational geometry is a study of such algorithms to solve problems stated in the terms of geometry, which can be performed by non-existing idealistic digital computer with infinite precision of computation AND for which one can get money. Right ?
47.248.0.45 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
My point was to show that computational geometry has to study any geometric algorithms regardless of what computers they are intended for - be it "ruler & compass" or "contemporary digital computers" or something else. The reason is that NONE of them are developed for real digital computers but for their unrealistic idealizations which are not better than analog computers or ruler & compass. Why then restrict oneself to one bad model and not to investigate others ? When running on real digital computers the outcome of the algorithms of "computational geometry" may be worse than when analog computers are applied to solving the same geometric problems or even worse than when ruler & compass are employed. For example, convex hull can be constructed with the help of ruler only. And this construction always suceeds unlike algorithms of "computational geometry". The same hold for constructing shortest path, etc.
And such studies into applying other computers to solving geometric problems do exist. But your encyclopedia misses them, whereas it has to reflect all reasonable points of view and not to restrict itself to presenting the views of the dominating school of thoughts.
47.248.0.45 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you (as the author of the bulk of the article) to add a section on the computational models for geometric algorithms, emphasize that the most of the research was done for a specific model, outline its shortcomings, mention other models proposed and algorithms for them, refer to comparison of the algorithms for different models from the standpoint of the divergency of computation, etc.
Then it will be worth of an encyclopedia and not a compilation from pieces by O'Rourke & Co.
47.248.0.45 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In the list of computational geometry problems, should we add
What about the problem of calculating the area of a union of N rectangles? It seems to me a very basic geometric problem. Does it have a page in Wikipedia? -- Erel Segal ( talk) 16:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a whole series of new articles awaiting new article review, with computer science talk page templates. See Category:All unreviewed new articles. For example, Kinetic triangulation.
I would appreciate reviews by an editor who knows this subject and can provide talk page templates with class and importance. The {{Userspace draft|source=ArticleWizard|date=May 2012}} tags should be removed, and of course any tags for problems should be added. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)