My soul as a computer programmer cries out against the idea of representing N particles with N^2 distances between them; it seems wasteful.
When you take into account that d(A, A) = 0 and d(A, B) = d(B, A), you only need N(N − 1)/2 distances.
You’d never even fewer in a flat 3D space, but if the particles can be in an arbitrarily curved space I think you need all of those.
N(N-1)/2 is O(N^2), which is not substantially better. Particularly to the soul of a computer scientist, which largely ignores constant factors anyway.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
When you take into account that d(A, A) = 0 and d(A, B) = d(B, A), you only need N(N − 1)/2 distances.
You’d never even fewer in a flat 3D space, but if the particles can be in an arbitrarily curved space I think you need all of those.
N(N-1)/2 is O(N^2), which is not substantially better. Particularly to the soul of a computer scientist, which largely ignores constant factors anyway.