|
in reply to Re^2: Closed geometry: a train track problem
in thread Closed geometry: a train track problem
I need to add that your grammar is really nifty, and it would produce perfectly valid layouts...and on further review the idea of transformations on a basic pattern is exactly what you proposed. Sorry for misinterpreting -- entirely my fault.
However I still wonder how you take that grammar and extend it into 2 and 3D, which as I recall requires some notion of state. My Finite Automata class is a bit rusty, so I forget the term... but I think I'm thinking of this being "not well formed" or "non-homogenous" or some other such phrase. Basically indicating transformations and rules that couldn't be reduced into grammars because of notion of state or other conditions. Darn, I hate forgetting college so fast :)
|
Re^4: Closed geometry: a train track problem
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 03, 2006 at 21:13 UTC
|
I in-fact meant "context-free" as you used above. I really should register an account so I can edit things. The idea of building things from transformations does make sense now, especially if you forget coordinates... it would be a fun project.
| [reply] |
|
