🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct1.082048.18478@dutrun2.tudelft.nl>, rcpshdb@dutrun2.tudelft.nl (Han de Bruijn) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep30.221602.12539@leland.Stanford.EDU> Laurence James Edwards:
|> > Well the term, Computational Geometry, was first applied to this
|> > particular field of study in a 1975 paper by Shamos. The book is
|> 
|> ... written by Shamos. Coincidence, huh?

Duh, not, to bore people with this needless bickering but the point was that 10
years passed between the time Shamos first explicitly identified the field till
the time he co-wrote the book, plenty of time for others to write a book as
well.
 
|> > For example, convex hull algorithms are generalized to n-dimensions, ...
|> 
|> Yes. And I've seen much better treatments of this, Dijkstra for example.
|> 
|> > little is known about point location problems in E^3 and higher dimensions.
|> 
|> Huh? _MANY_ working implementations exist in F.E.M. postprocessing packages,
|> as well as in "AVS", where I'm currently involved with. Somebody owes me an
|> explanation.

No kidding, the point was that the worst case analysis of algorithms for E^3
and up is not well developed. This was in '85 so it may have changed.

|> > Big oh worst case analysis does not always lead to algorithms well suited
|> > for a particular application, the authors specifically admit that.
|> 
|> Oh, I thought _Applied_ rules the roost in "sci.math.num-analysis" ...

Not really relevant to whether P&S is a good book on Computational Geometry.  I
won't argue with you if you say that worst case analysis is not the most
relevant of analysis techniques for all applications.

Larry Edwards