Re: Sensible and NonsenSQL Aspects of the NoSQL Hoopla

Jan Hidders wrote:
> On 2013-09-04 21:00:22 +0000, Norbert_Paul said:
>> ``However, with the shape
>> $$\begin{picture}(75,90)
...
>> \end{picture}$$
>> that method may not terminate.''
>>
>> to avoid backdoor arguments that sloppy specifications always leave open
>> in the sense of "But I meant it that way ... ".
>
> Impressive.
>
> Is the description in the following not precise enough? (Only looked
> briefly myself, busy day tomorrow, sorry.)
>
> http://www.geocomputation.org/2009/PDF/Bulbul_et_al.pdf

Is apply DecompositionTree equal to apply AHD? I had another publication at hand. Actually I tried to understand it in a way that noe doubt whatsoever on every algorithm's detail is left. As not all was perfectly clear to me, as an engineer, I simply decided to err at the safe side in avoiding the explicit claim that the algorithm does not always terminate. Hence I wrote "may" not terminate.

> Btw. it might be nice to see if there is no easy fix for this, like for
> example cutting the difference shape in two. Intutively my first
> inclination would be to base the proof of termination on the number of
> vertices being reduced, which indeed in your conterexample does not
> happen. This raises the question of how to do this optimally, for
> certain definiitons of optimal (least number of nodes in the tree?).

Cutting shapes is not a good idea in 3D and needs much care. Google for "Chazelle convex partitions of polyhedra".

>>> Indeed. But also not much of an audience. But who knows, it might come,
>>> and it's easier and less demanding (usually :-)) then a blog.
>>
>> Google archives Usenet. Maybe one day ...
>
> Let's hope so. So let the record show you have also an arxiv paper on
> this: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5691
>
> Btw. it has a few typos, you might want to quickly fix those now. ;-)
> Like "however, can expensive in dimension higher than 2"

Thanks for the "be". I'll do so later.

Yes that was my alternative approach:

When I developped it, I was unaware of Bulbul's work. Later on searching related work so as to please a reviewer I stumbled over it and found its weakness.

My paper was rejected on two conferences on GIS and spatial data for being "extremely theoretical and ... not ... appealing ... to a large audience", "very difficult", and, interestingly, not GIS-related enough whereas AHD got published on a GIS-conference. I then published the approach in a conference on computation for building and construction. This is my home-community. Civil engineers reject mathematical statements iff (no typo) they are wrong.

Norbert Received on Thu Sep 05 2013 - 15:14:27 CEST