|
Well knowing the reason why 0.9 and 0.1 are constants might have been fun. Because colors can be mixed in any proportion a,b such that new_color = floor(a*X) + floor(b*Y) where a + b = 1. But in your case it seems the colors are forced to be mixed in 0.9 and 0.1 proportions which means that the order of mixing becomes important, So you are looking for the order in which one can mix basic colors in 0.9 and 0.1 proportions, I must say that there might be no ways of solving it other than a brute force search method, the truncation operation "floor" further complicates matters when one attempts a mathematical analysis. 
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
|
|
|
|
|
In terms of algebra, your question is ill posed. You are in 3D space (the RGB cube). All possible mixtures of the two colors form a line segment (a whole straight line if you allow negative values of the mixing coefficients).
(In this discussion, I admit that the mixture constraint X + Y = 1 is enforced, which you didn't mention.)
Unless by coincidence, there is no reason that your third color belongs to the segment(or the line). You get a system of three equations in one unknown, usually without a solution.
To handle this we can look for the "best approximation", i.e. the mixture that will minimize the discrepancy with the desired color. Even though it is not recognized as "perceptually uniform", you can use the Euclidean distance.
In other words, you will project the desired color to the line segment by means of an orthogonal projection.
Let X C0 + (1-X) C1 be a color between C0 and C1. The vector from this point to C2 needs to be perpendicular to the direction C0C1. Hence, (X C0C2 + (1 - X) C1C2).C0C1 = 0 (. is the dot product). I.e. X C0C2.C0C1 + (1 - X) C1C2.C0C1 = 0, or X = C1C2.C0C1 / (C1C2.C0C1 - C0C2.C0C1) = - C1C2.C0C1 / C0C1.C0C1.
To restrict the solution to the range of positive coefficient mixtures, just clamp the value of X to the range [0..1].
Rather than a week of computation, this should take less than 100 nanoseconds in compiled code.
modified 19-Jun-12 2:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Help me!
i have a problem about AND/OR Graph Search Demo.
Who can help me???
Thank you very much!
|
|
|
|
|
chipchip_boy wrote: i have a problem about AND/OR Graph Search Demo.
No one here can guess what the problem is, you need to explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
The last chapter of the Course Reader for the Stanford University CS106B course (http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs106b/[^]) is on Graphs. You can download the book from that site. This would be of help.
|
|
|
|
|
how to made the algorithms in the tree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 is this?
Programming is work, it isn't finger painting. Luc Pattyn
|
|
|
|
|
Get yourself a ladder, climb a tree (a mature one), now create some algorithms.
When inspiration is running low, choose a different tree.
And finally, write some CodeProject articles about them.
|
|
|
|
|
Now I know how you wrote those CP articles. 
Signature construction in progress. Sorry for the inconvenience.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I did build myself a nice little tree house, so I can write without being disturbed...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, tree houses rock! 
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|
|
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: climb a tree
Apples, peaches, oranges, it doesn't matter does it?
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the Stanford University class CS106B, at http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs106b/[^]
On that page, you'll find an explanation on Binary Search Trees. Even better, download the Course Reader on that site, and you'll also find an explanation on Expression Trees.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys & ladies (to be gender insensitive), a theoretical thought, if a computer program simulates the human brain very accurately, does that make the program self - aware?
|
|
|
|
|
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: if a computer program simulates the human brain very accurately
If ...
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly regardless of what pattern you are following. Jeremy Likness
|
|
|
|
|
currently it has not been achieved yet, but are programs that use sensory processing such as computer vision systems self aware?
|
|
|
|
|
Computers are as close to the human brain as earth is to the edge of the universe. Don't take any notice of science fiction scare stories about computers magically becoming "self aware": it will not happen.
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly regardless of what pattern you are following. Jeremy Likness
|
|
|
|
|
but the brain uses some form of neural computation to generate self awareness don't you think that anything with short term memory is self aware? Imagine we erase some part of ones short term memory, is he/she going to know that they did what they just did at that moment?
|
|
|
|
|
What does that have to do with computers becoming self-aware? As I said before you cannot compare the two, a computer is nothing at all like a brain.
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly regardless of what pattern you are following. Jeremy Likness
|
|
|
|
|
Yes for now one cannot compare the computer to the human brain, but in the future there will be need to do just that, especially when the Fifth generation computers fitted with sensory processing programs come into existence, anything with self monitoring capability and short term memory is self aware, so a program that can monitor and keep track (learn) of it's actions is self aware, so short term memory as something to do with self awareness, I respect your view on this matter, but my stance is that self aware is as a result of mere self monitoring and keeping a log of actions (learn) in a knowledge base. 
|
|
|
|
|
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: so a program that can monitor and keep track (learn) of it's actions is self aware
No it isn't, it's just a program, and it's no more self-aware than a tin of baked beans.
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly regardless of what pattern you are following. Jeremy Likness
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
