<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: First Bites</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bit-player.org/2006/first-bites/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bit-player.org/2006/first-bites</link>
	<description>An amateur's outlook on computation and mathematics.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:49:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: A better yodeling contest &#187; Blog Archive &#187; 2D scaling in certain games</title>
		<link>http://bit-player.org/2006/first-bites#comment-922</link>
		<dc:creator>A better yodeling contest &#187; Blog Archive &#187; 2D scaling in certain games</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bit-player.org/?p=16#comment-922</guid>
		<description>[...] 2D scaling in certain games  Recently Friedman and Landsberg&#8217;s experimental results on certain scaling properties in the game chomp has been featured in Science News. (See another take on their work at bit-player.) It has been noted that the classic combinatorial game nim seems to have a &#8220;rougher&#8221;, easier to analyze structure than the &#8220;smooth&#8221; structure of more complicated games like chomp. In a similar vein, an interesting tidbit is that the limit  exists for all integer choices of , , and  if  is the function giving the value of two-roweosd chomp positions; whereas if  is the value of two nim heaps, the only values of  which work for all ,  are the powers of two. So, I thought it would be interesting to graph the difference between  and  for these different functions. There are at least two different ways of taking the difference between two nim-values: simply interpret them as integers and subtract one from the other, or use what is here the more natural operation of nim addition, conveniently provided directly by most CPU&#8217;s and implemented in C-style languages as the operator &#8220;^&#8221; - that&#8217;s right: binary XOR. Of course, what would be really interesting is whether this kind of scaling behavior extends to more than two dimensions, but I figured that as long as I am getting pretty pictures for 2D scaling, I have a duty to share them. First up is a look at two heap nim, compared using XOR. Click on the image to download a MPEG movie showing the box with x and y up to 256, for . Here black is zero difference, and white is maximum difference in that frame. Notice the many scaling properties associated with the powers of two in both space and time. I believe I have seen this basic idea used in screensavers before, which is appropriate since it is extremely fast. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 2D scaling in certain games  Recently Friedman and Landsberg&#8217;s experimental results on certain scaling properties in the game chomp has been featured in Science News. (See another take on their work at bit-player.) It has been noted that the classic combinatorial game nim seems to have a &#8220;rougher&#8221;, easier to analyze structure than the &#8220;smooth&#8221; structure of more complicated games like chomp. In a similar vein, an interesting tidbit is that the limit  exists for all integer choices of , , and  if  is the function giving the value of two-roweosd chomp positions; whereas if  is the value of two nim heaps, the only values of  which work for all ,  are the powers of two. So, I thought it would be interesting to graph the difference between  and  for these different functions. There are at least two different ways of taking the difference between two nim-values: simply interpret them as integers and subtract one from the other, or use what is here the more natural operation of nim addition, conveniently provided directly by most CPU&#8217;s and implemented in C-style languages as the operator &#8220;^&#8221; - that&#8217;s right: binary XOR. Of course, what would be really interesting is whether this kind of scaling behavior extends to more than two dimensions, but I figured that as long as I am getting pretty pictures for 2D scaling, I have a duty to share them. First up is a look at two heap nim, compared using XOR. Click on the image to download a MPEG movie showing the box with x and y up to 256, for . Here black is zero difference, and white is maximum difference in that frame. Notice the many scaling properties associated with the powers of two in both space and time. I believe I have seen this basic idea used in screensavers before, which is appropriate since it is extremely fast. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
