This is new to me (thanks, I'll investigate) and it's the kind of things the books of Physics at University (Computer Science) was full of, completely detached from real world experience. Then there was the book of exercises to prepare for the exams. Sometimes finding the right way to go from theory to calculations was a puzzle in its own. I guess that they were almost the very same books they used at the Physics department and teachers are really interested only in students that can master the subject by themselves with no help. I had one of those students at high school. He was reading university books by 16 and he is a professor now.
Luckily the books of Physics at high school started from practical experience and then showed the equations. So, my advice to somebody willing to learn physics, with plenty of time, no ambition to become a researcher is: go through high school books to get the gist of the subject, then go deeper with one of those university books.
I break it down in reverse order to let you understand how I get a gist of that definition
wavefunction, for example light or any particle, this can't be argued.
the complex plane, because? But a complex number is only a pair of numbers and I know that in polar notation it's handy for:
rotation! And I remember that the electric and magnetic components are on orthogonal planes so we are back to complex numbers and maybe the components rotate, but how about neutral particles? But they are not neutral inside. I think that I'm already off track, very lost.
Energy = frequency, because I know that higher frequency photons are more energetic.
Finally, usually we learn about kinetic energy, then E = mc^2 and maybe about the relativistic effects, without the formula. Those things can be understood easily and are taught at school. The jump to angular rotation and the complex plane is something that few people are exposed to and, as I hope to have demonstrated, it's not easy to map to common experiences, which could be inevitable.
Hi, fair enough. I've thoroughly immersed myself in this stuff enough that I sometimes don't realise people aren't as familiar with the concepts and jargon. I'm going to write another article that I think should help about the Klein gordon equation, at some point.
Kolomogorov complexity as an objective measure of the information contained in a string just doesn't work. It depends entirely on the language used for the program, and for any string, in some language, the complexity is zero.
An AI can be trained on body scans to detect diseases, tumours etc. Ideally this can be trained on real scans with real diseases but you could also train on synthetic data (synthetic bodies and/or synthetic diseases).
You can also focus ultrasonic waves to destroy (vaporise or cook) diseased tissue.
So now the algorithm is patent-free, and the vertex and fragment shaders are open-sourced with the MIT license, what we presumably need is some open-source code to take Bezier curves from a font file (or from the loaded data from FreeType or whatever), and process them into the data format that Slug expects.
Also thank you to Eric Lengyel, I have had my eye on Slug for a while and wished it was open-source.
I was going to ask if Slug can be used as a general vector renderer. Or does it assume limits on e.g. number of curves/paths per area that are typical of fonts?
Eric answered a similar question on the Discord channel
saying Slug is suitable for generic vector graphics. He recommends checking out the demo at
https://sluglibrary.com/ (you can cycle through the examples with the space bar).
I think it is limited to integral quadratic bezier curves, which is sufficient for text rendering. But general purpose vector graphics almost certainly want rational cubic bezier curves too.
reply