[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: To turn or not to turn

Alright... I'll buy that.  Let's talk this over supper (or breakfast or
whatever).  I am getting sick of calc.  And did you (Tim) come by my room
this weekend and left a cryptic message on my door (signature 
withheld by the author)?  I thought of some other stuff between what I
call turnining vs. non-turning when I went to bed last night; we could
talk about that too.

I wonder if Cindy is checking her emails... hi Cindy!

Joyce :)

On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 08:17:03PM -0500, Joyce Poon wrote:
> > (huge sigh...) I don't really understand this time-dependence/turning
> > idea. However, I still think that the robot can change direction without
> > turning
> Ahh!  If the robot changes direction, then it _has_ turned!  That was
> the point I was trying to make.
> It's semantics.
> There are, of course, different ways of turning, and we should discuss
> as many as we can.  But _please_, if for my poor sake alone, don't
> call it a non-turning robot!!!
> A non-turning robot is one that cannot choose its direction.  If that
> is what you are proposing, then we definitely should discuss that over
> supper.  :-)
> A less strict definition: A non-turning robot is one that cannot
> choose an arbitrary direction.
> -- 
> Signature withheld by request of author.