# [metapost] turningnumber revisited

Boguslaw Jackowski B_Jackowski at GUST.org.pl
Mon Jun 27 17:45:14 CEST 2011

Luigi:
> maybe
> from 0 to 1,1 +90°;
> then +180° (hence I have 270°)
> then from 1,1 to 2,0 +90° (hence I have 360°, i.e. turning number = +1)
> then +180° (hence I have 360°+180°)
> then from 2,0 to 0,0 go straight
> then +180° to match the initial position (hence I have 360°+360°
> turning number = +2)

Hmmm...

Then how you would explain the following pattern of the resulting
turning numbers for the first path rotated by an angle between
0 and 90 degree:

angle range  turningnumber
0--1:           2
2--9:           0
10--29:          2
30--36:          0
37--44:          2
45--52:          0
53:          1
54--77:          0
78--85:         -1
86--88:          0
89--90:          2

The pattern for the second path is a little bit less complex:

0--45:          1
46--74:          0
75:          1
76--88:          0
89--90:          1

Cheers -- Jacko

Ps. The testing code was:

p:=(0,0)..{up}(1,1) & (1,1){down} .. (2,0) -- cycle ;
for i:=0 upto 90: show (i,turningnumber (p rotated i)); endfor

and

p:=(0,0)..{up}(1,1) & (1,1){down} .. (0,1/2) -- cycle ;
for i:=0 upto 90: show (i,turningnumber (p rotated i)); endfor

respectively.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bogus\l{}aw Jackowski: B_Jackowski at GUST.ORG.PL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even
when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-