Because the problem applies primarily to realtime 3D / 2D graphics, of which I have spent the last 7 years learning about. That is of course not a guarantee the problem does not exist, but it is very likely. Otherwise, it would be one of the significant known problems in realtime graphics.
Even if you are pre-computing it, wouldn't you like it to go faster, like encoding a video or rendering a ray-traced scene?
What I want is irrelevant. All that matters is what the application needs to do. It is a senseless waste of time to optimize a sufficiently fast algorithm.
There are an infinite number of polygons.
There are an infinite number of numbers. This has no bearing on the problem, on the effectiveness of caching, or on any other of my points. In other words, this is yet another completely irrelevant statement by you.
You have all the signs of a junior developer who thinks there is nothing left in CS to challenge him as he churns out enterprise crud where caching is the only thing he can think of that matters.
Oh, really? I did you the courtesy of explaining exactly why your earlier statement was so full of ignorance. You merely insult without reason or basis. Congrats, you are a troll and have been trolling this entire time. This means you have not only completely discredited yourself, but are also no longer worth trying to disprove, because your statements are without reason or merit. Which is quite sad, since I personally was interested in an opposing viewpoint; but not if it's completely insane.
Have you even solved any problems related to "polygons" in your programming career? Also, how long exactly have you been programming for? I have been programming for ten years. I'm trying to find one good reason to take any of your statements seriously. Unless you have any graphics experience, or more experience in general, I see no reason to. And since you have neither logic nor tact, I see no reason to continue this conversation.
I just explained to you the reasons why you are wrong which you have conveniently disregarded.
Instead of rising up to the challenge or admitting failure, you make broad sweeping generalizations like you could learn 99% of any CS concept in less than a day, and that any challenge that you are not willing to do (or likely cannot), is because the challenge has no "real-life" application.
Not only did you read the paper incorrectly, trying desperately to find holes in it, but you try to change the subject by calling me naive in my refusal to allow you to just say "memoize" as the answer to any algorithmic challenge. I think it is clear to anyone else reading this that you are in the wrong here.
I already explained exactly why the algorithm has no real world application. The burden of proof is now on you. And until you do, I maintain the challenge was completely invalid.
Because the problem applies primarily to realtime 3D / 2D graphics, of which I have spent the last 7 years learning about. That is of course not a guarantee the problem does not exist, but it is very likely. Otherwise, it would be one of the significant known problems in realtime graphics.
Even if you are pre-computing it, wouldn't you like it to go faster, like encoding a video or rendering a ray-traced scene?
What I want is irrelevant. All that matters is what the application needs to do. It is a senseless waste of time to optimize a sufficiently fast algorithm.
There are an infinite number of polygons.
There are an infinite number of numbers. This has no bearing on the problem, on the effectiveness of caching, or on any other of my points. In other words, this is yet another completely irrelevant statement by you.
You have all the signs of a junior developer who thinks there is nothing left in CS to challenge him as he churns out enterprise crud where caching is the only thing he can think of that matters.
Oh, really? I did you the courtesy of explaining exactly why your earlier statement was so full of ignorance. You merely insult without reason or basis. Congrats, you are a troll and have been trolling this entire time. This means you have not only completely discredited yourself, but are also no longer worth trying to disprove, because your statements are without reason or merit. Which is quite sad, since I personally was interested in an opposing viewpoint; but not if it's completely insane.
Have you even solved any problems related to "polygons" in your programming career? Also, how long exactly have you been programming for? I have been programming for ten years. I'm trying to find one good reason to take any of your statements seriously. Unless you have any graphics experience, or more experience in general, I see no reason to. And since you have neither logic nor tact, I see no reason to continue this conversation.