Comment by calebm
14 hours ago
I did recently learn of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_set concept, and it is a very similar concept.
14 hours ago
I did recently learn of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_set concept, and it is a very similar concept.
Those were popular in the 90s for image processing: e.g. https://shape.polymtl.ca/lombaert/levelset/
Dude, it's fine to be learning stuff and even writing about it. But if you're still discovering basic stuff like level sets, then maybe hold off on declaring that you've discovered, after centuries of mathematical development, a completely new form of graphing?
the author uses hyperbole, yeah. they're an artist, I think it's expected. I don't find anything personally offensive in the exaggerated framing of this art
I think your critique would be more effective if you left out the part where you shame the author's lack of knowledge about level sets
I think it hides your valid (if overstated) criticism of the author's exaggeration behind a non-constructive insult, and your comment would be better without that tone
> Dude, it's fine to be learning stuff and even writing about it.
The point about level sets is entirely that the author not only does not have the background to make claims about novelty, they have all the clues they need to figure out that they don't have the background.
It reads more like mysticism than a serious claim of novelty, chill out.
> a new type of graphing called "fuzzy graphing"
> For all the history of computational mathematical visualization, graphing equations has been done in binary mode
These are very concrete, non-mystical claims. But do you really think "mysticism" is better here?
2 replies →
[dead]