I don't know what you are encoding, but standard jpeg compression gives good quality at 1 bit per pixel. You should be able to find a photo editor or similar to play around with the compression ratios for testing.
"Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
Ive allways liked playing around wih SetPixel and GetPixel, this time ive created a quite nice and simple pattern drawer, only using the SetPixel, GetPixel and some very simple math ( pow(), cos() sin() tan() modulo, * / + - ).
It fills up the screen with varius drawing methods using a formula.
Here[^] (2.49MB) is an example of my latest pattern.
I wonder, can this be considerd as a simple algorithm?
Exactly how, in your universe, do you pack nine widgets into four boxes, where each box is only big enough for two? And how does 9/4=2.25 help you do that more than 9/4=2r1?
How would you pour 9 liters of water into 4 containers ensuring each container has an equal quantity? I would pour 2.25 (9/4) liters into each glass. 9/4=2r1 is not as useful as 9/4=2.25 in this example. I’m afraid I’m not ready to give up my rational (or even real) numbers.
If you were determined to use only integers you could, in theory, use the number of water molecules as a measure of volume. At one level this system is ultimately simple: unfortunately it is also impractical to the point of near impossibility. You say that you would use a smaller unit of measurement: so in this example each glass would contain 2250 milliliters. Is this really much simpler or more intuitive than 2.25 liters?
So it seems you also believe in rational numbers. Pity real life isn't always so simple. Presenting a simple example does not negate the existence of more complex ones or the more advanced tools which may be required to deal with them.
This appears to me to be a simple modification of the n-queens problem. Placing n queens on a board such that no queen can capture any other queen. I would persue this line of thought with a google search on the n-queens problem.
I beg to differ. On an n*n board (with n>2) you can place n queens, the only problem
is finding one of the many solutions. In the problem at hand, you dont know beforehand
how many "queens" you can put; you loose some squares to the walls, and in return
the walls typically offer the possibility to put more than n.
BTW the maximum seems to be n*n/2 (putting a wall on all the squares of one color).
I agree with you totally on the number of queens that could be placed on this board due to wall constraints, this is why I suggested a modified version of n queens. The wall constraints could easily be taken into account and still allow for the same "Basic" n queens algorithm to function correctly.
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 1-Oct-22 21:16