Interference (was Re: Playing Field configuration?)

[Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca>]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:46:08PM -0500, Joyce Poon wrote:
> 
> 1) I don't want to waste time.
> 2) Not entirely true.  If they have stronger emitters then obviously a
> less sensitive detector will still be able to detect its signal. That

>From the context, I believe it was the computer board you were
concerned that would be wasting time.  If I misinterpreted that, then
I'll only say that wiring together a ring of emitters should be pretty
trivial.

If it wasn't easy to construct, I wouldn't bother suggesting something
that won't be very useful.  But it's something that is easy to
construct, and _moreover_, it's easy to test whether it will work or not
before constructing it.


> If the comp doesn't have enough free time, then interference has to be
> implemented via circuitry... (if it is implemented at all).

I think it would be very hard to generate effective interference from
circuitry.

I've been thinking about possible algorithms, and our earlier analysis
was a little simplistic.  If the enemy doesn't use a square(-ish)
wave, it's almost impossible.  If they use a square(-ish) wave, it may
or may not be possible to get an overall win from appropriately
generated interference.  I don't know.  I want to find out, and the
math is too complicated to do from a theoretical perspective only.

You have to understand that I'm usually arguing for things that can be
tried, or considered more closely.


-- 
Signature withheld by request of author.