Next Article in Journal
CNN Based on Transfer Learning Models Using Data Augmentation and Transformation for Detection of Concrete Crack
Next Article in Special Issue
Properties and Recognition of Atom Graphs
Previous Article in Journal
Fast Conflict Detection for Multi-Dimensional Packet Filters
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Temari Balls, Spheres, SphereHarmonic: From Japanese Folkcraft to Music

Algorithms 2022, 15(8), 286; https://doi.org/10.3390/a15080286
by Maria Mannone 1,2,† and Takashi Yoshino 3,*,†
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Algorithms 2022, 15(8), 286; https://doi.org/10.3390/a15080286
Submission received: 15 July 2022 / Revised: 9 August 2022 / Accepted: 12 August 2022 / Published: 14 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Combinatorial Designs: Theory and Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper discusses Temari balls and  a new musical game SphereHarmonic is designed based on it. In general the paper is well-written. In Section 3.1, the worst case numbers of rotations of  upper hemisphere is given as (2n)!/n, which means the instrument could be complex. It would be good to have a complexity result, e.g., PSPACE-hard.

Line 55: "plane [3,6].".

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her critical reading of our manuscript and helpful comments. The followings are the one-to-one reply to the list of comments. We denoted the revised parts in blue. 

- Lines 258-263: We added the description about the computational difficulties to the manuscript. 
- We corrected the references. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I have some comments:

-        line 60: Articles [1,2] are not defined in the references. Please, give both articles. [15] is also not complete.

-        line 66: Could you give a web page if the reader would like to listen to the music with CubeHarmonic?

-        line 92: Sn: n is sometimes italic, sometimes not. Check it.

-        line 97 and 107: What is exactly the magic number? Can you define or cite? How did you calculate it?

-        line 153: article, not manuscript.

-        line 155-163: Please, write a little bit more about the stereographic projection, especially, about the lower sub-figures of Fig.7.   Line 150: I think you illustrated the further half hemisphere instead of upper one in Fig. 7. It would be better if you could give a figure about the methods of the projection. The centres of the projections are sometimes vertices, sometimes middle of segments. Am I right? Why has just one subfigure of C6 in Fig. 7?

-        in Fig.8.: L=lower, U=upper

-        line 215: Table 2?

-        line 280-281 ??

-        line 312: What is the name of the journal?

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her critical reading of our manuscript and helpful comments. The followings are the one-to-one reply to the list of comments. We denoted the revised part in blue. 

- References 1-2: We changed the references to the correct ones.
- Line 77-78: We added the URL of the movie of CubeHarmonic on YouTube.
- Throughout the text, we unified the representation of Sn with S$n$. 
- Lines 115-117: We added the description of the magic numbers. 
- Line 183: We replaced the word "manuscript" with "article".
- Lines 170-183: We added the description of the stereographic projection with a new figure. 
- Caption of Fig. 9 (Fig. 8, previously): We corrected the caption. 
- Line 241: We corrected the table number. 
- Description of "Reset": the description wasn't essential for our objectives; however, we added some explanations on lines 313-315.
- Reference 27 (Reference 13, previously): We corrected the name of the journal. 

Back to TopTop