TrueSurfing is not as good as GotoSurfing, period.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Revision as of 7 December 2025 at 06:34.
The highlighted comment was created in this revision.

TrueSurfing is not as good as GotoSurfing, period.

I had a prove in mind that TrueSurfing is as good as GotoSurfing, but today I realized that it’s wrong. Now I know that GotoSurfing is better. Prepare for ScalarGT ;)

    Xor (talk)15:53, 28 November 2025

    Here's the prove in my mind previously, refined with Claude


    Proof: Equivalence of Surfing Algorithms[edit]

    Assumptions[edit]

    1. All waves W₁, W₂, ..., Wₙ are known in advance

    2. Robot uses orbital movement (heading determined by position relative to opponent)

    3. Danger is a function only of (position, velocity) at wave intersection

    Definitions[edit]

    State: S = (p, v) where p is position, v is velocity vector

    Reachable set: R(S₀, t) = all states reachable from S₀ in time t under physics constraints

    Intersection state set: I(S₀, Wᵢ) = all possible (position, velocity) states at which Wᵢ can intersect the robot, starting from S₀

    Lemma: Reachable State Coverage[edit]

    All three algorithms can evaluate every state in I(S₀, Wᵢ).

    Proof:

    • True Surfing: Direction choice determines trajectory → intersection state. Evaluates both directions.
    • GoTo Surfing: Destination choice determines path → intersection state. Sufficient destinations cover I(S₀, Wᵢ).
    • Path Surfing: Action sequences cover all trajectories → all intersection states.

    Since I(S₀, Wᵢ) is determined by physics, not algorithm, all three cover the same set. ∎

    Theorem[edit]

    All three algorithms find the same optimal intersection states (S₁*, ..., Sₙ*) minimizing Σᵢ D(Wᵢ, Sᵢ).

    Proof: By Lemma, all evaluate the same state space. Optimal selection over identical sets yields identical result. ∎

      Xor (talk)07:34, 7 December 2025