Timeline for Resolving equivalence relations
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2012 at 12:16 | vote | accept | lucacerone | ||
| Sep 20, 2012 at 22:31 | answer | added | comingstorm | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 22:12 | comment | added | lucacerone | Pixels labelled by 4 don't belong to any other region. From this information I have to derive that there are 2 different regions, one made of pixels labelled as 1,2,3, the other one made of pixels labelled as 4. Hope this is more clear now. | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 22:11 | comment | added | lucacerone | Sorry if I have not been clear. If you explain what doesn't make sense I can try and edit the question. As you scan the image you assign temporary label to the pixels (in this case the temporary labels are 1,2,3,4). Meanwhile you build the equivalence relations. For example the first equivalence you find is that pixels temporary labelled as 1 belong to the same region of pixels labelled by 3. The second states that pixels labelled by 2 also belong to the region of pixels labelled by 3. Pixels labelled by 3 of course belong to the same region as pixel labelled 1 or 2 or 3. Pixels labelled by 4 | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 21:52 | comment | added | Jimmy Hoffa | The data representation you've given doesn't make sense with the explanation of it to me.. I might be missing something, but I don't see a region with only the element 4 unless it's a like a vin diagram and your "regions" means group related through intersection | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 19:29 | history | asked | lucacerone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |