Yeah, it wasn’t a real mystery (as noted in the Wikipedia article, it already existed in the numerical literature). But practically it would have surprised a lot of programmers in the days before Wikipedia, when you’d have had to read a somewhat specialized textbook or a paper to learn about it.
Plus the exact constant selected and the method used to derive it remains a minor mystery, right? In the sense that it is good but non-optimal.
dcanelhas|13 days ago
bastscho|13 days ago
It's explained exceptionally well here [0].
[0] https://youtu.be/p8u_k2LIZyo?si=loEDS5hPcRGWXk0E
bee_rider|13 days ago
Plus the exact constant selected and the method used to derive it remains a minor mystery, right? In the sense that it is good but non-optimal.
Antibabelic|13 days ago
unknown|13 days ago
[deleted]
calibas|13 days ago
ginko|13 days ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root
tetrisgm|13 days ago
The guy had made Doom (nice fast pseudo 3D), Quake (fast 3D), and now made it look great.
Finding obscure math and figuring out that it was the correct fit for his renderer is just so bonkers.
josefritzishere|13 days ago