Goran Frehse wrote:
I had a feeling that you might be interested in the bug, but it only occurred in the process of one specific example after many thousands of iterations. I was not able to isolate the source, and creating the same polyhedron by adding the constraints one by one resulted in the correct empty polyhedron.
Dear Goran,
yes, we would be more than interested in the phenomenon you observed.
Once I'm past my current workload, I'll be happy to include your test and see if I can find any strange things happening.
Thanks!
I minimized the polyhedron using "mypoly.minimized_constraints()". Afterwards "mypoly" would be the proper solution. This I found strange, since minimized_constraints() is declared "const", so shouldn't it leave mypoly unchanged?
It leaves its "essence" unchanged, which means that `mypoly' would continue to be a representation of exactly the same polyhedron. But it may be a different representation.
Is there any reason against using the minimizing versions?
Not at all.
Like I said, it speeded things up for me by about 50%, as far as I can remember, even though the polyhedra mostly were only generated once, checked for intersection, and then forgotten. The speedup should be even greater when the polyhedra are used several times for computations.
That is exactly the point in having the minimizing versions available: their careful use (where "careful" here is a highly application-dependent) can result in significant speedups. Cheers,
Roberto