Timeline for Simulating random sequential adsorption in reverse
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 19, 2013 at 6:11 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
void
|
| Apr 18, 2013 at 13:31 | comment | added | A.T. | @Carlo Beenakker Then again, this could be nonsense since discs are placed randomly, and if we remove a disc, we could just as well have not placed it there in the first place. | |
| Apr 18, 2013 at 13:18 | comment | added | A.T. | @Carlo Beenakker Maybe we could handle what you're talking about by conditioning my presentation of a simulation result on having been able to achieve a density $Q$? I suppose what I'm attempting to address is the notion that in the "pre-jammed" state during Process 1, the probability of placing a disc at a certain location depends on the local geometry of previously placed discs, which will look different as we increase the disc surface density. However, going backwards, we uniformly select and remove discs, possibly generating a different surface patterning. | |
| Apr 18, 2013 at 13:10 | history | answered | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |