Re: Software that makes placemats
Posted: 00:08 Fri 31 May 2013
A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
RAYC wrote:For smaller tastings, how about an A3 mat, guillotined lengthways (i.e 420 x 15mm), that can be placed near centre table (leaving uncluttered space for notes/meals etc.) and contain ports in an easy access row?
Might /BottomRow do the job?The manual wrote:There are also three simple designs, /TopRow, /MiddleRow, /BottomRow, each having everything in one row, with obvious vertical position. There is also /Sides, with the obvious meaning.
For more than a few glasses these are too cramped.
That would certainly leave the table uncluttered.RAYC wrote:(i.e 420 x 15mm)
Current winner is ‟/DiamondsPlus”, which allows a little generalisation to something like Packomania’s 29-glass best:djewesbury wrote:/DiamondsPlusTwo
It’s printed on A0. Each glass can hold most of a bottle. By the time you reach glass 16, it would indeed be difficult.djewesbury wrote:I wouldn't like to be reaching for glass 16 on that placemat...
I can think of nothing better.jdaw1 wrote:Current winner is ‟/DiamondsPlus”
Ditto. Some possible insect outlines came to mind, but ‟/DiamondsPlus” is probably simpler and clearer, and therefore preferred.Glenn E. wrote:I can think of nothing better.jdaw1 wrote:Current winner is ‟/DiamondsPlus”
I quickly discarded /BeetleCarapacePhilW wrote:Ditto. Some possible insect outlines came to mind, but ‟/DiamondsPlus” is probably simpler and clearer, and therefore preferred.Glenn E. wrote:I can think of nothing better.jdaw1 wrote:Current winner is ‟/DiamondsPlus”
Hmm... it does look a bit like a top down view of a Star Trek shuttlecraft... though /Galileo would probably be too esoteric of a reference.djewesbury wrote:I quickly discarded /BeetleCarapacePhilW wrote:Ditto. Some possible insect outlines came to mind, but ‟/DiamondsPlus” is probably simpler and clearer, and therefore preferred.Glenn E. wrote:I can think of nothing better.jdaw1 wrote:Current winner is ‟/DiamondsPlus”
Not sure to which of the many possible uses of /Galileo this refers, but, as you say, too esoteric.Glenn E. wrote:Hmm... it does look a bit like a top down view of a Star Trek shuttlecraft... though /Galileo would probably be too esoteric of a reference.
jdaw1 wrote:Glenn E. wrote:too esoteric of a reference.
Is this worth the effort?[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=57931#p57931]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:Updated draft of the placemats.
- +BMHR and his Croft.
jdaw1 wrote:with each update of the placemats pictures have been posted in the thread.
!
Is this worth the effort?
Agreed.djewesbury wrote:yes
In the general case I'd say no; It's useful in the case you refer to because the first post is not currently being regularly updated, so the image posts are providing a useful update of current attendees and ports; if the first post were being regularly updated, I think the additional effort of pdf -> jpg -> image hosting -> post for each placemat iteration would be excessive.jdaw1 wrote:Different question. In the arrangement thread for the 1966 horizontal on 27th June, with each update of the placemats pictures have been posted in the thread.
Is this worth the effort?
Presumably this also depends on any assumptions regarding the nature of the quartic to be solved, i.e. all-real roots (or at least a real root between the specified starting points), no discontinuities (no matching pole-zero root pairs) etc. In which case whether bisection, interpolation or your alternate specified scheme would be quicker in the general case would presumably depend on the nature of the group of potential curves across which the technique would be used? An alternative to the factor changed used to avoid never reaching the root could be to add a small proportion of the step delta determined from interpolation (deliberate over-adjust), though potentially decreasing the over-step with time to avoid oscillation; similar to techniques used to avoid getting stuck in local minima.jdaw1 wrote:Step one: write code to solve a quartic equation. Worrying, I think that I have devised an algorithm as good as Brent’s Method, but simpler, and not needing a pre-chosen x-step.
Assume root bounded by LowerX and UpperX, with matching y values LowerY and UpperY. Interpolation would make the next x value be LowerX + (UpperX”“LowerX) × LowerY/(LowerY”“UpperY). This can fail for some shapes (e.g., y = x^4 ”“ c), as the interpolated value is always on the same side of the root, so only one side (say, LowerX) ever gets moved.
So instead make the next x value be LowerX + (UpperX”“LowerX) × Max[0.143, Min[0.857, LowerY/(LowerY”“UpperY) ]]
Repeat until UpperX”“LowerX ≤ Tolerance, that constant being pre-determined and small, at which time return the interpolated value (without the bounds).
When LowerX and UpperX are roughly even around the root, it interpolates. When one side is much closer, it brings in the other, moving it by a factor of 1÷0.143 ≈ 7.
FYI, the ‟0.143” constant came from a small experiment done in Excel. I do not know whether it should be precisely 1/7, or some other value. But a small non-exactitude in this would add only a tiny extra to the algorithm’s average time.
Indeed, this can be seen as a compromise between the slow robustness of interval bisection (‟! Max[0.5, Min[0.5, ! ]]”) and interpolation (‟! Max[0, Min[1, ! ]]”).
Assumptions: ∈ ℝ; continuous; starting points either side. No more. Desiderata include robustness, speed, and simplicity of code.PhilW wrote:Presumably this also depends on any assumptions regarding the nature of the quartic to be solved, i.e. all-real roots (or at least a real root between the specified starting points), no discontinuities (no matching pole-zero root pairs) etc. In which case whether bisection, interpolation or your alternate specified scheme would be quicker in the general case would presumably depend on the nature of the group of potential curves across which the technique would be used? An alternative to the factor changed used to avoid never reaching the root could be to add a small proportion of the step delta determined from interpolation (deliberate over-adjust), though potentially decreasing the over-step with time to avoid oscillation; similar to techniques used to avoid getting stuck in local minima.
Any possibility of multiple roots between initial bounds (excluding duplicate root)? (I.e. can we either exclude the possibility of multiple roots being present, and If not then do we care? i.e. are all roots required, or any root). Could there be any bounding of the relative ratio of xTolerance to initial delta between upper and lower bounds?jdaw1 wrote:Assumptions: ∈ ℝ; continuous; starting points either side. No more. Desiderata include robustness, speed, and simplicity of code.
Don’t need to reach the root, only for the bounds either side to be closer than xTolerance, when do a final unconstrained linear interpolation.