Xref: utzoo comp.theory:364 comp.misc:8266 comp.lang.misc:4199
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!being!postpischil
From: postpischil@alien.enet.dec.com (Always mount a scratch monkey.)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.misc,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Modulus (Re: hashing function for strings)
Message-ID: <8574@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 22 Feb 90 15:56:44 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Followup-To: comp.theory
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 25


In article <6197@bd.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes...

> The obvious coordinate transformation is (x',y') = (x/2,y/2).  If
> division truncates towards zero, fine; otherwise, the scaled picture
> is no longer symmetrical (and typically the viewer can perceive
> the asymmetry).

I'm not sure why you are doing geometry with integers, but it's a real shame
that the drawing, which consisted of two identical components, one centered
about the origin and one off to the side a bit, no longer consists of two
identical components.

The difference between the two divisions is that one preserves reflectional
symmetry and one preserves translational symmetry.  Can you make an argument
that one symmetry is more aesthetic than another?

Neither form of division has a greater claim to purity or grace.  Each should
be used when appropriate.  Both should be available in a general programming
environment.


				-- edp (Eric Postpischil)
				"Always mount a scratch monkey."
				postpischil@alien.enet.dec.com