Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 20

New comment
 

And to keep your eyes peeled, just imagine that it is just a function with a number of parameters.

Here's from the same entry:

y=f(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7,x8,x9,x10);

does that cause you to get brainwashed?

 
Dmitry Fedoseev:

...5-dimensional, 6-dimensional, 7-dimensional, 8-dimensional, 9-dimensional, 10-dimensional, 11-dimensional, 12-dimensional...

More?

Ahhhh...)) Is that what they're called?
 
Dmitry Fedoseev:

I've already written that there's no need to get hung up on the representation of multidimensional spaces. A function can have any number of parameters - obviously, plain and simple. And to represent exactly two-dimensional graph and three-dimensional graph, look for maximum or minimum on them. All the rest must be done by the correct approach in programming: a parameter defining the number of parameters, dynamic arrays in accordance with this number, loops repeated in accordance with this parameter.

Limit yourself to one or two optimizable parameter, but make it work automatically, only by setting property, defining number of parameters. And from there, any number of parameters can be assigned.

It seems to me that you confuse the number of parameters of the analytical function with the number of measurements for which the line coordinates are calculated.
 
Реter Konow:
Ahhhh...)) Is that what they're called?
That's without names. I don't think they've come up with any names beyond the 4th dimension. Maybe there are names, I don't know. It doesn't change anything in principle.
 
Реter Konow:
It seems to me that you are confusing the number of parameters of the analytical function with the number of measurements for which the line coordinates are calculated.
No, I am not. I am fine with that.
 
Dmitry Fedoseev:
That's without titles. I don't think they've come up with any names beyond the 4th dimension. Maybe there are names, I don't know. It doesn't change anything in principle.
Well, if there are no names for the following after the 4th dimension, why do we need them at all? Let us first confidently orient ourselves in our three spatial dimensions, and in the fourth time dimension too. )))
 
Dmitry Fedoseev:
No, I'm not. I'm fine with that.
You see, when it came to the number of FF parameters, the question of additional object measures came up immediately. Here is the root of confusion. The number of parameters of the analytic function has nothing to do with the coordinate axes. And it does not increase them in any way.
 
Реter Konow:
You see, when it came to the number of FF parameters, the question of additional object dimensions was immediately raised. Here is the root of the confusion. The number of parameters of the analytic function has nothing to do with the coordinate axes. And it does not increase them in any way.
It does. One parameter is one axis. Another axis for the value.
 
Dmitry Fedoseev:
It does. One parameter is one axis. Another axis for a value.
Explain in simple terms why you think so?
 

A quadratic function is a parabola. A simple explanation. http://fizmat.by/math/function/quadratic_function

Even if you add a million extra parameters to its function, the parabola will still appear on a two-dimensional graph.

1...131415161718192021222324252627...133
New comment