 | | Re: New Lego challenge ! —Laurentino Martins
|
| | | (...) Yes, unfortunately the current firmware implementation from LEGO doesn't have a call stack, so you can not build recursive routines. :-( On the other hand I can imagine labyrinths where that bot would never be able to do anything out of them. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: New Lego challenge ! —Mario Ferrari
|
| | | | | (...) Actually you don't need a recursive algorithm to apply the right hand rule. Simply follow either the right (or left) wall and you'll arrive at the exit. For a maze with no exit but a "special point" to reach inside (like Philippe's one), the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New Lego challenge ! —Paul Speed
|
| | | | | | (...) To be more specific, the "right hand rule" is not a recursive algorithm at all in the classic sense. We like to think of it that way because the "traveler" will traverse parts of the maze repeatedly, in the worst case the whole maze. However, (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New Lego challenge ! —Philippe Jadin
|
| | | | | | (...) The right (or left (-: ) -hand rule seems to be simple but not the most efficient. That's why I included the light beacon. Providing you have the right beacon detector (let's build one!), and you don't know which direction is the best, you can (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | RE: New Lego challenge ! —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | | (...) Hmm, maybe it is finally time to try a real application with pbFORTH. With it's large memory space, you can map out the maze and represent it as a bitmap, or tree of paths. You CAN do recursion in pbFORTH, but it's ugly. I rememeber a thread a (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | RE: New Lego challenge ! —Laurentino Martins
|
| | | | | (...) This may be a good idea, and in fact it may be a good jump start to many people out there that never tried pbFORTH because the inertia of learning a new language (like me!!). If you can provide a nice implementation of this and explain it to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: New Lego challenge ! —Wes Matchett
|
| | | | | (...) A call stack is not an absolute requirement to do recursive processing, it just makes it easier. I have written recursive processes with only an array. -Wes (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New Lego challenge ! —Chris Phillips
|
| | | | | | (...) light (...) in (...) able to do anything out of them. (...) Unfortunately, the default RCX firmware doesn't support arrays, either. Also, the assertion that you can simply follow a wall in order to traverse an entire labyrinth actually depends (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | RE: New Lego challenge ! —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | | | This is a REALLY good idea. Here's something I had kicking around in my head... 1. Making a maze that we can all use is kinda hard. 2. Making a bot small enough to fit a standard buildable maze is really hard. I propose we invert the problem a (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New Lego challenge ! —Andrew Lynch
|
| | | | | | | Ralph Hempel wrote in message <000001befe2a$c62ef4...pro150>... (...) <snip> Excellent Idea! That way, the light sensor could 'hover' over the maze, and be moved in an X and Y direction to 'traverse' it. I may attempt this, as I have very limited (...) (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New Lego challenge ! —Philippe Jadin
|
| | | | | | Ralph Hempel wrote : (...) This is a great idea, and this could be usefull for at least two reasons: -If you don't have room to create a real maze -We don't have an easy way to make a real bot move in either precise x or y direction (because of (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New Lego challenge ! —Paul Speed
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, a synchro-bot is pretty good at this. In case you missed previous threads, this 'bot is one that the direction of all of its wheels are synchronized. The robot can drive in any direction but its orientation never changes. With a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New Lego challenge ! —S. Crawshaw
|
| | | | | | On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Paul Speed wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Depending on how you define "stock Mindstorms parts", you _can_ make a synchro-bot. You can use a differential instead of the turntable, hence you need one RIS for each wheel! This (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | RE: New Lego challenge ! —Joel Shafer
|
| | | | At 12:52 PM 9/13/99 +0000, you wrote: <snip> (...) The argument quickly turned into one of our definition wars about what exactly is recursion. Joel Shafer joel@connect.net (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | RE: New Lego challenge ! —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | <snipped discussion about recursive vs non-recursive> (...) Joel, could you please define definition war more exactly? And maybe give an example of why it's not recursive... Cheers, Ralph Hempel - P.Eng ---...--- Check out pbFORTH for LEGO (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: definition war definition war (was: New Lego challenge !) —Martin Erdelen
|
| | | | (...) Rudimentary*) BNG form: definition war ::= [definition war] war definition ::= {I say so} war ::= {You're wrong} Braces denote atoms. Non-recursive as it never calls itself. It just sends telegrams. Cheers, Martin "sorry for bargin' in" E. (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
