Finding rectangle with largest area given a set of line segments - algorithm

Imagine I gave you a set of line segments in the form [(x1, y1), (x2, y2)]. We've got two points that define a line segment. For our purposes this segment will always be horizontal or vertical. I want to find the largest area of any rectangle enclosed by the line segments.
For example when given the set of the following line segments the result should be the area of the green shaded area:
So far the only solution I can think of is brute force - every pair of horizontal segments (O(N^2)) being checked with every pair of vertical segments (O(N^2)) for an O(N^4) runtime. Obviously we can optimize this by precomputing which segments can be put together, but that will still keep the time complexity at O(N^4).
I'm looking for ideally an O(N^2) solution but if you have anything less than O(N^4) please share!

You can use the line-sweep algorithm with this problem.
In this case, the vertical lines are added or removed from the set of lines to take into account when moving up. Both start & end points o the lines are added to the sweepset and the horizontal lines are added in order to a list.
step 1: line is added to activeVertical
step 2: second line added to activeVertical
step 3: third line added to activeVertical (note: they are in order of X).
step 4a: fourth line added to activeVertical
step 4b: Horizontal line found, time to create a rectangle which does not
have any height
step 5: second horizontal line found, time to check finish previous rectangle
etc.
Below the code (C#). Yuo can find more details on line sweep algorithm here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweep_line_algorithm
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace tt
{
public class Point
{
public Point(double X, double Y)
{
this.X = X;
this.Y = Y;
}
public double X { get; set; }
public double Y { get; set; }
}
public class Line
{
public Point Start { get; set; }
public Point End { get; set; }
}
public class Rectangle
{
public Rectangle()
{ }
public Rectangle(Point BottomLeft, Point TopRight)
{
this.BottomLeft = BottomLeft;
this.TopRight = TopRight;
}
public Point BottomLeft { get; set; }
public Point TopRight { get; set; }
}
public class XComparer : IComparer<Line>
{
public int Compare(Line x, Line y)
{
return x.Start.X.CompareTo(y.Start.X);
}
}
public class Program
{
public static int GetMinIndex(List<Line> Lines, Line Horizontal)
{
var xComp = new XComparer();
int minIndex = Lines.BinarySearch(Horizontal, xComp);
if (minIndex < 0) minIndex = ~minIndex;
return minIndex;
}
public static int GetMaxIndex(List<Line> Lines, Line Horizontal)
{
var xComp = new XComparer();
int maxIndex = Lines.BinarySearch(new Line() { Start = Horizontal.End }, xComp);
if (maxIndex < 0) maxIndex = ~maxIndex - 1;
return maxIndex;
}
public static void Main()
{
List<Line> lines = new List<Line>();
lines.Add(new Line() { Start = new Point(0.5, 12.5), End = new Point(10, 12.5) });
lines.Add(new Line() { Start = new Point(2.5, 9.5), End = new Point(15.8, 9.5) });
lines.Add(new Line() { Start = new Point(6, 8.5), End = new Point(16.3, 8.5) });
lines.Add(new Line() { Start = new Point(3.5, 8.5), End = new Point(3.5, 12.5) });
lines.Add(new Line() { Start = new Point(7, 4.2), End = new Point(7, 13.8) });
lines.Add(new Line() { Start = new Point(10, 5.8), End = new Point(10, 14.2) });
lines.Add(new Line() { Start = new Point(15.6, 0), End = new Point(15.6, 16) });
lines.Add(new Line() { Start = new Point(1.6, 20), End = new Point(15.6, 20) });
var activeVertical = new List<Line>();
SortedList<double, List<Line>> sweepSet = new SortedList<double, List<Line>>();
foreach (Line oneLine in lines.Where(x => x.Start.X == x.End.X))
{
if (!sweepSet.ContainsKey(oneLine.Start.Y)) sweepSet.Add(oneLine.Start.Y, new List<Line>());
sweepSet[oneLine.Start.Y].Add(oneLine);
if (!sweepSet.ContainsKey(oneLine.End.Y)) sweepSet.Add(oneLine.End.Y, new List<Line>());
sweepSet[oneLine.End.Y].Add(oneLine);
}
var linesHorizontal = lines.Where(x => x.Start.Y == x.End.Y).OrderBy(x => x.Start.Y).ToList();
List<Rectangle> rectangles = new List<Rectangle>();
List<Rectangle> completedRectangles = new List<Rectangle>();
var xComp = new XComparer();
int horIndex = 0;
int sweepIndex = 0;
while (sweepIndex < sweepSet.Count)
{
double y = Math.Min(sweepSet.Keys[sweepIndex], linesHorizontal[horIndex].Start.Y);
double verValue = linesHorizontal[horIndex].Start.Y;
//add lines which are influencing
if (sweepSet.ContainsKey(y))
{
foreach (Line oneLine in sweepSet[y].Where(x => x.Start.Y == y))
{
int index = activeVertical.BinarySearch(oneLine, xComp);
if (index < 0) index = ~index;
activeVertical.Insert(index, oneLine);
}
}
if (y == verValue)
{
int minIndex = GetMinIndex(activeVertical, linesHorizontal[horIndex]);
int maxIndex = GetMaxIndex(activeVertical, linesHorizontal[horIndex]);
if (minIndex != maxIndex && minIndex < activeVertical.Count && maxIndex < activeVertical.Count)
{
double minX = activeVertical[minIndex].Start.X;
double maxX = activeVertical[maxIndex].Start.X;
foreach (Rectangle oneRec in rectangles)
{
if (minX > oneRec.BottomLeft.X) oneRec.BottomLeft.X = minX;
if (maxX < oneRec.TopRight.X) oneRec.TopRight.X = maxX;
oneRec.TopRight.Y = verValue;
}
completedRectangles.AddRange(rectangles);
rectangles.Clear();
rectangles.Add(new Rectangle(new Point(activeVertical[minIndex].Start.X, verValue), new Point(activeVertical[maxIndex].Start.X, verValue)));
}
else rectangles.Clear();
}
//Cleanup lines which end
if (sweepSet.ContainsKey(y))
{
foreach (Line oneLine in sweepSet[y].Where(x => x.End.Y == y))
{
activeVertical.Remove(oneLine);
}
}
if (y >= verValue)
{
horIndex++;
if (horIndex == linesHorizontal.Count) break;
if (y == sweepSet.Keys[sweepIndex]) sweepIndex++;
}
else
{
sweepIndex++;
}
}
}
}
}

You can find all intersections between vertical lines and horizontal lines with scan. Work through all lines in order of increasing y. Maintain a buffer containing all vertical lines including the current value of y. Keep the buffer sorted on the x value for each vertical line. As you come to each horizontal line, check to see if it intersects any of the lines in the buffer. The worst case cost of this is when there are O(N^2) intersections.
Now you have a list of intersections, and a list, for each line, of where it is intersected. For each horizontal line we will be interested, for each intersection, in how far down you can go following the vertical line at that intersection. Store these values in an array. Divide these values up into pairs and store the maximum of each pair in the array. Repeat the process for each maximum, and so on. This builds a tree of values where the leaves are the original values, in the original order, and each node carries the maximum value found in any descendant. The total cost of this is linear in the number of intersections.
Now take every intersection and assume it is the bottom left corner of a rectangle. For each intersection above it on its vertical line look at the intersecting horizontal line and find the rightmost point on this line where you can go down at least as far as the intersection. You have built a tree that allows you to find this in time logarithmic in the number of intersections on that line: start from the top of the tree and go right if the value at that child is at least as far as you need to go, else go left. Finding this gives you the largest rectangle using that bottom left and that horizontal line, so checking this for each horizontal line gives you the largest rectangle including that intersection as bottom left, and repeating this for each intersection gives you the overall largest rectangle.
If the lines form an N x N grid then for each intersection you check O(N) horizontal lines above it at cost O(log N) so the total cost of this stage is O(N^3log(N)) in the worst case.

The example you provided:
actually simplifies to something like this once we extract and merge only the rectangles formed by intersections:
---------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
--------- ------------------
| |
|____________________________|
Then the problem becomes finding the largest rectangle in a rectilinear (aka orthogonal) polygon, for which there is a bunch of literature out there.

Related

Points and segments

I'm doing online course and got stuck at this problem.
The first line contains two non-negative integers 1 ≤ n, m ≤ 50000 — the number of segments and points on a line, respectively. The next n lines contain two integers a_i ≤ b_i defining the i-th segment. The next line contain m integers defining points. All the integers are of absolute value at most 10^8. For each segment, output the number of points it is used from the n-points table.
My solution is :
for point in points:
occurrence = 0
for l, r in segments:
if l <= point <= r:
occurrence += 1
print(occurrence),
The complexity of this algorithm is O(m*n), which is obviously not very efficient. What is the best way of solving this problem? Any help will be appreciated!
Sample Input:
2 3
0 5
7 10
1 6 11
Sample Output:
1 0 0
Sample Input 2:
1 3
-10 10
-100 100 0
Sample Output 2:
0 0 1
You can use sweep line algorithm to solve this problem.
First, break each segment into two points, open and close points.
Add all these points together with those m points, and sort them based on their locations.
Iterating through the list of points, maintaining a counter, every time you encounter an open point, increase the counter, and if you encounter an end point, decrease it. If you encounter a point in list m point, the result for this point is the value of counter at this moment.
For example 2, we have:
1 3
-10 10
-100 100 0
After sorting, what we have is:
-100 -10 0 10 100
At point -100, we have `counter = 0`
At point -10, this is open point, we increase `counter = 1`
At point 0, so result is 1
At point 10, this is close point, we decrease `counter = 0`
At point 100, result is 0
So, result for point -100 is 0, point 100 is 0 and point 0 is 1 as expected.
Time complexity is O((n + m) log (n + m)).
[Original answer] by how many segments is each point used
I am not sure I got the problem correctly but looks like simple example of Histogram use ...
create counter array (one item per point)
set it to zero
process the last line incrementing each used point counter O(m)
write the answer by reading histogram O(n)
So the result should be O(m+n) something like (C++):
const int n=2,m=3;
const int p[n][2]={ {0,5},{7,10} };
const int s[m]={1,6,11};
int i,cnt[n];
for (i=0;i<n;i++) cnt[i]=0;
for (i=0;i<m;i++) if ((s[i]>=0)&&(s[i]<n)) cnt[s[i]]++;
for (i=0;i<n;i++) cout << cnt[i] << " "; // result: 0 1
But as you can see the p[] coordinates are never used so either I missed something in your problem description or you missing something or it is there just to trick solvers ...
[edit1] after clearing the inconsistencies in OP the result is a bit different
By how many points is each segment used:
create counter array (one item per segment)
set it to zero
process the last line incrementing each used point counter O(m)
write the answer by reading histogram O(m)
So the result is O(m) something like (C++):
const int n=2,m=3;
const int p[n][2]={ {0,5},{7,10} };
const int s[m]={1,6,11};
int i,cnt[m];
for (i=0;i<m;i++) cnt[i]=0;
for (i=0;i<m;i++) if ((s[i]>=0)&&(s[i]<n)) cnt[i]++;
for (i=0;i<m;i++) cout << cnt[i] << " "; // result: 1,0,0
[Notes]
After added new sample set to OP it is clear now that:
indexes starts from 0
the problem is how many points from table p[n] are really used by each segment (m numbers in output)
Use Binary Search.
Sort the line segments according to 1st value and the second value. If you use c++, you can use custom sort like this:
sort(a,a+n,fun); //a is your array of pair<int,int>, coordinates representing line
bool fun(pair<int,int> a, pair<int,int> b){
if(a.first<b.first)
return true;
if(a.first>b.first)
return false;
return a.second < b.second;
}
Then, for every point, find the 1st line that captures the point and the first line that does not (after the line that does of course). If no line captures the point, you can return -1 or something (and not check for the point that does not).
Something like:
int checkFirstHold(pair<int,int> a[], int p,int min, int max){ //p is the point
while(min < max){
int mid = (min + max)/2;
if(a[mid].first <= p && a[mid].second>=p && a[mid-1].first<p && a[mid-1].second<p) //ie, p is in line a[mid] and not in line a[mid-1]
return mid;
if(a[mid].first <= p && a[mid].second>=p && a[mid-1].first<=p && a[mid-1].second>=p) //ie, p is both in line a[mid] and not in line a[mid-1]
max = mid-1;
if(a[mid].first < p && a[mid].second<p ) //ie, p is not in line a[mid]
min = mid + 1;
}
return -1; //implying no point holds the line
}
Similarly, write a checkLastHold function.
Then, find checkLastHold - checkFirstHold for every point, which is the answer.
The complexity of this solution will be O(n log m), as it takes (log m) for every calculation.
Here is my counter-based solution in Java.
Note that all points, segment start and segment end are read into one array.
If points of different PointType have the same x-coordinate, then the point is sorted after segment start and before segment end. This is done to count the point as "in" the segment if it coincides with both the segment start (counter already increased) and the segment end (counter not yet decreased).
For storing an answer in the same order as the points from the input, I create the array result of size pointsCount (only points counted, not the segments) and set its element with index SuperPoint.index, which stores the position of the point in the original input.
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.Scanner;
public final class PointsAndSegmentsSolution {
enum PointType { // in order of sort, so that the point will be counted on both segment start and end coordinates
SEGMENT_START,
POINT,
SEGMENT_END,
}
static class SuperPoint {
final PointType type;
final int x;
final int index; // -1 (actually does not matter) for segments, index for points
public SuperPoint(final PointType type, final int x) {
this(type, x, -1);
}
public SuperPoint(final PointType type, final int x, final int index) {
this.type = type;
this.x = x;
this.index = index;
}
}
private static int[] countSegments(final SuperPoint[] allPoints, final int pointsCount) {
Arrays.sort(allPoints, (o1, o2) -> {
if (o1.x < o2.x)
return -1;
if (o1.x > o2.x)
return 1;
return Integer.compare( o1.type.ordinal(), o2.type.ordinal() ); // points with the same X coordinate by order in PointType enum
});
final int[] result = new int[pointsCount];
int counter = 0;
for (final SuperPoint superPoint : allPoints) {
switch (superPoint.type) {
case SEGMENT_START:
counter++;
break;
case SEGMENT_END:
counter--;
break;
case POINT:
result[superPoint.index] = counter;
break;
default:
throw new IllegalArgumentException( String.format("Unknown SuperPoint type: %s", superPoint.type) );
}
}
return result;
}
public static void main(final String[] args) {
final Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
final int segmentsCount = scanner.nextInt();
final int pointsCount = scanner.nextInt();
final SuperPoint[] allPoints = new SuperPoint[(segmentsCount * 2) + pointsCount];
int allPointsIndex = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < segmentsCount; i++) {
final int start = scanner.nextInt();
final int end = scanner.nextInt();
allPoints[allPointsIndex] = new SuperPoint(PointType.SEGMENT_START, start);
allPointsIndex++;
allPoints[allPointsIndex] = new SuperPoint(PointType.SEGMENT_END, end);
allPointsIndex++;
}
for (int i = 0; i < pointsCount; i++) {
final int x = scanner.nextInt();
allPoints[allPointsIndex] = new SuperPoint(PointType.POINT, x, i);
allPointsIndex++;
}
final int[] pointsSegmentsCounts = countSegments(allPoints, pointsCount);
for (final int count : pointsSegmentsCounts) {
System.out.print(count + " ");
}
}
}

Largest rectangle within a given rectangle with holes

You are given a rectangle of length 'L' and breadth 'B'. Consider the rectangle to be a grid containing LxB cells. You are also given the positions of those cells which are to be considered as holes.
The task is to find the largest rectangle within this given rectangle such that this rectangle contains no holes.
I know I can do this using brute force, but that will take too much time. Is there any other faster algorithm?
PS: "largest rectangle" means rectangle having maximum area.
Divide and conquer approach is described here http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/pubs/ComputLargestEmptyRectangle.pdf
Here's a DP based approach.. Not necessarily better than the one in the paper, but definitely simpler to understand.
Make a memoization table where x and y values correspond to end points of cells.
Fill in the table like so..
dp[x][y] = max( increment_x( dp[x-1][y] ),
increment_y( dp[x][y-1] ) ;
The increment function will not increment if incrementing the coordinates adds a hole as in (d)...and simply return max( x- , y-).
Note: When incrementing, causes complete engulfing of a hole as in e) .. Two rectangle may need to be compared, the one before the hole and the one after the hole, and on tie the one with more freedom may be kept..
You could also optimize by only taking steps of 'valid lattice points' rather than every lattice point..
This is a raw idea and probably has flaws. Do point :)
You could try a scan-line approach.
First initialize a list with the positions and sizes of possible starting positions on one edge of your parent rectangle. Now you will save all possible rectangles for now which will have the following attributes: start, end, width. With width beeing 0 in the beginning.
Now you iterate and in every step you check the following things:
check for all current, active rectangles if they are still possible, if yes update their width. if not do the following things:
duplicate the current rectagle and mark one as inactive. The other one will get reduced so it fits again. It gets updted the following way: start = (currentHoleStart - start < end - currentHoleEnd) ? currentHoleStart : start and same for the end
check for new possible rectangles and add them to the active list
In the end just check the list of rectangles for the largest. If you're very limited on memory you could improve the solution by just keeping the largest inactive rectangle
A little representation of the algorithm, where x denotes a hole:
-----
|x |
| |
-----
initial:
1,2,0, active
step 1:
1,2,1 active
0,1,0 active
step 2:
1,2,2 inactive
0,1,1 inactive
Here's an alternate method:-
create list of rectangles
add one rectangle, size LxB
for each hole
get rectangles containing hole
remove rectangles from list
for each rectangle
create 0-4 child rectangles
add child rectangles to list
find largest rectangle in list
To create the child rectangles:-
|-------| parent rectangle with hole under consideration (x)
| |
| x |
| |
|-------|
Create four child rectangles thus:-
|-|-----|
|.| |
|.|x |
|.| |
|-|-----|
|---|---|
| |...|
| x|...|
| |...|
|---|---|
|-------|
|-------|
| x |
| |
|-------|
|-------|
| |
| x |
|-------|
|-------|
If the hole is adjacent to an edge, the child will have zero width or height and so it doesn't get added into the list.
Don't know why this was down voted. Anyway, here's an implementation in C#:-
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Drawing;
using System.Diagnostics;
namespace LargestRectangle
{
class Program
{
static Rectangle FindLargestRectangle(Rectangle bounds, List<Point> holes)
{
LinkedList<Rectangle>
rectangles = new LinkedList<Rectangle>();
rectangles.AddLast(bounds);
foreach (Point hole in holes)
{
for (LinkedListNode<Rectangle> rect = rectangles.First, next=null; rect != null; rect = next)
{
next = rect.Next;
if (rect.Value.Contains(hole))
{
rectangles.Remove(rect);
if (rect.Value.Left < hole.X)
{
rectangles.AddFirst(new Rectangle(rect.Value.Left, rect.Value.Top, hole.X - rect.Value.Left, rect.Value.Height));
}
if (rect.Value.Right - 1 > hole.X)
{
rectangles.AddFirst(new Rectangle(hole.X + 1, rect.Value.Top, rect.Value.Right - hole.X - 1, rect.Value.Height));
}
if (rect.Value.Top < hole.Y)
{
rectangles.AddFirst(new Rectangle(rect.Value.Left, rect.Value.Top, rect.Value.Width, hole.Y - rect.Value.Top));
}
if (rect.Value.Bottom - 1 > hole.Y)
{
rectangles.AddFirst(new Rectangle(rect.Value.Left, hole.Y + 1, rect.Value.Width, rect.Value.Bottom - hole.Y - 1));
}
}
}
}
Rectangle
largest = new Rectangle(0, 0, 0, 0);
int
max_area = 0;
foreach (Rectangle rect in rectangles)
{
int
area = rect.Width * rect.Height;
if (area > max_area)
{
largest = rect;
max_area = area;
}
}
return largest;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int
max_holes = 100,
size = 50;
Rectangle
bounds = new Rectangle(0, 0, size, size);
List<Point>
holes = new List <Point> ();
Random
random = new Random ();
for (int i = 0; i < max_holes; ++i)
{
holes.Add(new Point(random.Next(size), random.Next(size)));
}
List<string>
area = new List<String>();
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
{
area.Add(new String('.', size));
}
foreach (Point p in holes)
{
area[p.Y] = area[p.Y].Substring(0, p.X) + '*' + area[p.Y].Substring(p.X + 1);
}
Console.WriteLine("Map:-");
Console.WriteLine("");
foreach (string s in area)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
}
Stopwatch
execution_time = new Stopwatch();
execution_time.Start();
Rectangle
largest_rect = FindLargestRectangle(bounds, holes);
execution_time.Stop();
for (int y = largest_rect.Top; y < largest_rect.Bottom; ++y)
{
area[y] = area[y].Substring(0, largest_rect.Left) + new string('#', largest_rect.Width) + area[y].Substring(largest_rect.Right); string
}
Console.WriteLine("");
Console.WriteLine("Map:-");
Console.WriteLine("");
foreach (string s in area)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
}
Console.WriteLine("");
Console.WriteLine("Largest rectangle: (" + largest_rect.Left + "," + largest_rect.Top + ")-(" + (largest_rect.Right - 1) + "," + (largest_rect.Bottom - 1) + ")");
Console.WriteLine("Execution time = " + execution_time.ElapsedMilliseconds);
}
}
}
Built using DevStudio 2008.
On my machine, it takes 59ms to do the 100 holes in a 50x50 grid. I originally used List<Rectangle> instead of LinkedList<Rectangle> but that took over 1000ms!

Cycle finding algorithm

I need do find a cycle beginning and ending at given point. It is not guaranteed that it exists.
I use bool[,] points to indicate which point can be in cycle. Poins can be only on grid. points indicates if given point on grid can be in cycle.
I need to find this cycle using as minimum number of points.
One point can be used only once.
Connection can be only vertical or horizontal.
Let this be our points (red is starting point):
removing dead ImageShack links
I realized that I can do this:
while(numberOfPointsChanged)
{
//remove points that are alone in row or column
}
So i have:
removing dead ImageShack links
Now, I can find the path.
removing dead ImageShack links
But what if there are points that are not deleted by this loop but should not be in path?
I have written code:
class MyPoint
{
public int X { get; set; }
public int Y { get; set; }
public List<MyPoint> Neighbours = new List<MyPoint>();
public MyPoint parent = null;
public bool marked = false;
}
private static MyPoint LoopSearch2(bool[,] mask, int supIndexStart, int recIndexStart)
{
List<MyPoint> points = new List<MyPoint>();
//here begins translation bool[,] to list of points
points.Add(new MyPoint { X = recIndexStart, Y = supIndexStart });
for (int i = 0; i < mask.GetLength(0); i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < mask.GetLength(1); j++)
{
if (mask[i, j])
{
points.Add(new MyPoint { X = j, Y = i });
}
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < points.Count; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < points.Count; j++)
{
if (i != j)
{
if (points[i].X == points[j].X || points[i].Y == points[j].Y)
{
points[i].Neighbours.Add(points[j]);
}
}
}
}
//end of translating
List<MyPoint> queue = new List<MyPoint>();
MyPoint start = (points[0]); //beginning point
start.marked = true; //it is marked
MyPoint last=null; //last point. this will be returned
queue.Add(points[0]);
while(queue.Count>0)
{
MyPoint current = queue.First(); //taking point from queue
queue.Remove(current); //removing it
foreach(MyPoint neighbour in current.Neighbours) //checking Neighbours
{
if (!neighbour.marked) //in neighbour isn't marked adding it to queue
{
neighbour.marked = true;
neighbour.parent = current;
queue.Add(neighbour);
}
//if neighbour is marked checking if it is startig point and if neighbour's parent is current point. if it is not that means that loop already got here so we start searching parents to got to starting point
else if(!neighbour.Equals(start) && !neighbour.parent.Equals(current))
{
current = neighbour;
while(true)
{
if (current.parent.Equals(start))
{
last = current;
break;
}
else
current = current.parent;
}
break;
}
}
}
return last;
}
But it doesn't work. The path it founds contains two points: start and it's first neighbour.
What am I doing wrong?
EDIT:
Forgot to mention... After horizontal connection there has to be vertical, horizontal, vertical and so on...
What is more in each row and column there need to be max two points (two or none) that are in the cycle. But this condition is the same as "The cycle has to be the shortest one".
First of all, you should change your representation to a more efficient one. You should make vertex a structure/class, which keeps the list of the connected vertices.
Having changed the representation, you can easily find the shortest cycle using breadth-first search.
You can speed the search up with the following trick: traverse the graph in the breadth-first order, marking the traversed vertices (and storing the "parent vertex" number on the way to the root at each vertex). AS soon as you find an already marked vertex, the search is finished. You can find the two paths from the found vertex to the root by walking back by the stored "parent" vertices.
Edit:
Are you sure you code is right? I tried the following:
while (queue.Count > 0)
{
MyPoint current = queue.First(); //taking point from queue
queue.Remove(current); //removing it
foreach (MyPoint neighbour in current.Neighbours) //checking Neighbours
{
if (!neighbour.marked) //if neighbour isn't marked adding it to queue
{
neighbour.marked = true;
neighbour.parent = current;
queue.Add(neighbour);
}
else if (!neighbour.Equals(current.parent)) // not considering own parent
{
// found!
List<MyPoint> loop = new List<MyPoint>();
MyPoint p = current;
do
{
loop.Add(p);
p = p.parent;
}
while (p != null);
p = neighbour;
while (!p.Equals(start))
{
loop.Add(p);
p = p.parent;
}
return loop;
}
}
}
return null;
instead of the corresponding part in your code (I changed the return type to List<MyPoint>, too). It works and correctly finds a smaller loop, consisting of 3 points: the red point, the point directly above and the point directly below.
That is what I have done. I don't know if it is optimised but it does work correctly. I have not done the sorting of the points as #marcog suggested.
private static bool LoopSearch2(bool[,] mask, int supIndexStart, int recIndexStart, out List<MyPoint> path)
{
List<MyPoint> points = new List<MyPoint>();
points.Add(new MyPoint { X = recIndexStart, Y = supIndexStart });
for (int i = 0; i < mask.GetLength(0); i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < mask.GetLength(1); j++)
{
if (mask[i, j])
{
points.Add(new MyPoint { X = j, Y = i });
}
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < points.Count; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < points.Count; j++)
{
if (i != j)
{
if (points[i].X == points[j].X || points[i].Y == points[j].Y)
{
points[i].Neighbours.Add(points[j]);
}
}
}
}
List<MyPoint> queue = new List<MyPoint>();
MyPoint start = (points[0]);
start.marked = true;
queue.Add(points[0]);
path = new List<MyPoint>();
bool found = false;
while(queue.Count>0)
{
MyPoint current = queue.First();
queue.Remove(current);
foreach (MyPoint neighbour in current.Neighbours)
{
if (!neighbour.marked)
{
neighbour.marked = true;
neighbour.parent = current;
queue.Add(neighbour);
}
else
{
if (neighbour.parent != null && neighbour.parent.Equals(current))
continue;
if (current.parent == null)
continue;
bool previousConnectionHorizontal = current.parent.Y == current.Y;
bool currentConnectionHorizontal = current.Y == neighbour.Y;
if (previousConnectionHorizontal != currentConnectionHorizontal)
{
MyPoint prev = current;
while (true)
{
path.Add(prev);
if (prev.Equals(start))
break;
prev = prev.parent;
}
path.Reverse();
prev = neighbour;
while (true)
{
if (prev.Equals(start))
break;
path.Add(prev);
prev = prev.parent;
}
found = true;
break;
}
}
if (found) break;
}
if (found) break;
}
if (path.Count == 0)
{
path = null;
return false;
}
return true;
}
Your points removal step is worst case O(N^3) if implemented poorly, with the worst case being stripping a single point in each iteration. And since it doesn't always save you that much computation in the cycle detection, I'd avoid doing it as it also adds an extra layer of complexity to the solution.
Begin by creating an adjacency list from the set of points. You can do this efficiently in O(NlogN) if you sort the points by X and Y (separately) and iterate through the points in order of X and Y. Then to find the shortest cycle length (determined by number of points), start a BFS from each point by initially throwing all points on the queue. As you traverse an edge, store the source of the path along with the current point. Then you will know when the BFS returns to the source, in which case we've found a cycle. If you end up with an empty queue before finding a cycle, then none exists. Be careful not to track back immediately to the previous point or you will end up with a defunct cycle formed by two points. You might also want to avoid, for example, a cycle formed by the points (0, 0), (0, 2) and (0, 1) as this forms a straight line.
The BFS potentially has a worst case of being exponential, but I believe such a case can either be proven to not exist or be extremely rare as the denser the graph the quicker you'll find a cycle while the sparser the graph the smaller your queue will be. On average it is more likely to be closer to the same runtime as the adjacency list construction, or in the worst realistic cases O(N^2).
I think that I'd use an adapted variant of Dijkstra's algorithm which stops and returns the cycle whenever it arrives to any node for the second time. If this never happens, you don't have a cycle.
This approach should be much more efficient than a breadth-first or depth-first search, especially if you have many nodes. It is guarateed that you'll only visit each node once, thereby you have a linear runtime.

Geo Fencing - point inside/outside polygon

I would like to determine a polygon and implement an algorithm which would check if a point is inside or outside the polygon.
Does anyone know if there is any example available of any similar algorithm?
If i remember correctly, the algorithm is to draw a horizontal line through your test point. Count how many lines of of the polygon you intersect to reach your point.
If the answer is odd, you're inside. If the answer is even, you're outside.
Edit: Yeah, what he said (Wikipedia):
C# code
bool IsPointInPolygon(List<Loc> poly, Loc point)
{
int i, j;
bool c = false;
for (i = 0, j = poly.Count - 1; i < poly.Count; j = i++)
{
if ((((poly[i].Lt <= point.Lt) && (point.Lt < poly[j].Lt))
|| ((poly[j].Lt <= point.Lt) && (point.Lt < poly[i].Lt)))
&& (point.Lg < (poly[j].Lg - poly[i].Lg) * (point.Lt - poly[i].Lt)
/ (poly[j].Lt - poly[i].Lt) + poly[i].Lg))
{
c = !c;
}
}
return c;
}
Location class
public class Loc
{
private double lt;
private double lg;
public double Lg
{
get { return lg; }
set { lg = value; }
}
public double Lt
{
get { return lt; }
set { lt = value; }
}
public Loc(double lt, double lg)
{
this.lt = lt;
this.lg = lg;
}
}
After searching the web and trying various implementations and porting them from C++ to C# I finally got my code straight:
public static bool PointInPolygon(LatLong p, List<LatLong> poly)
{
int n = poly.Count();
poly.Add(new LatLong { Lat = poly[0].Lat, Lon = poly[0].Lon });
LatLong[] v = poly.ToArray();
int wn = 0; // the winding number counter
// loop through all edges of the polygon
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{ // edge from V[i] to V[i+1]
if (v[i].Lat <= p.Lat)
{ // start y <= P.y
if (v[i + 1].Lat > p.Lat) // an upward crossing
if (isLeft(v[i], v[i + 1], p) > 0) // P left of edge
++wn; // have a valid up intersect
}
else
{ // start y > P.y (no test needed)
if (v[i + 1].Lat <= p.Lat) // a downward crossing
if (isLeft(v[i], v[i + 1], p) < 0) // P right of edge
--wn; // have a valid down intersect
}
}
if (wn != 0)
return true;
else
return false;
}
private static int isLeft(LatLong P0, LatLong P1, LatLong P2)
{
double calc = ((P1.Lon - P0.Lon) * (P2.Lat - P0.Lat)
- (P2.Lon - P0.Lon) * (P1.Lat - P0.Lat));
if (calc > 0)
return 1;
else if (calc < 0)
return -1;
else
return 0;
}
The isLeft function was giving me rounding problems and I spent hours without realizing that I was doing the conversion wrong, so forgive me for the lame if block at the end of that function.
BTW, this is the original code and article:
http://softsurfer.com/Archive/algorithm_0103/algorithm_0103.htm
By far the best explanation and implementation can be found at
Point In Polygon Winding Number Inclusion
There is even a C++ implementation at the end of the well explained article. This site also contains some great algorithms/solutions for other geometry based problems.
I have modified and used the C++ implementation and also created a C# implementation. You definitely want to use the Winding Number algorithm as it is more accurate than the edge crossing algorithm and it is very fast.
I think there is a simpler and more efficient solution.
Here is the code in C++. I should be simple to convert it to C#.
int pnpoly(int npol, float *xp, float *yp, float x, float y)
{
int i, j, c = 0;
for (i = 0, j = npol-1; i < npol; j = i++) {
if ((((yp[i] <= y) && (y < yp[j])) ||
((yp[j] <= y) && (y < yp[i]))) &&
(x < (xp[j] - xp[i]) * (y - yp[i]) / (yp[j] - yp[i]) + xp[i]))
c = !c;
}
return c;
}
The complete solution in asp.Net C#, you can see the complete detail here, you can see how to find point(lat,lon) whether its inside or Outside the Polygon using the latitude and longitudes ?
Article Reference Link
private static bool checkPointExistsInGeofencePolygon(string latlnglist, string lat, string lng)
{
List<Loc> objList = new List<Loc>();
// sample string should be like this strlatlng = "39.11495,-76.873259|39.114588,-76.872808|39.112921,-76.870373|";
string[] arr = latlnglist.Split('|');
for (int i = 0; i <= arr.Length - 1; i++)
{
string latlng = arr[i];
string[] arrlatlng = latlng.Split(',');
Loc er = new Loc(Convert.ToDouble(arrlatlng[0]), Convert.ToDouble(arrlatlng[1]));
objList.Add(er);
}
Loc pt = new Loc(Convert.ToDouble(lat), Convert.ToDouble(lng));
if (IsPointInPolygon(objList, pt) == true)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
private static bool IsPointInPolygon(List<Loc> poly, Loc point)
{
int i, j;
bool c = false;
for (i = 0, j = poly.Count - 1; i < poly.Count; j = i++)
{
if ((((poly[i].Lt <= point.Lt) && (point.Lt < poly[j].Lt)) |
((poly[j].Lt <= point.Lt) && (point.Lt < poly[i].Lt))) &&
(point.Lg < (poly[j].Lg - poly[i].Lg) * (point.Lt - poly[i].Lt) / (poly[j].Lt - poly[i].Lt) + poly[i].Lg))
c = !c;
}
return c;
}
Just a heads up (using answer as I can't comment), if you want to use point-in-polygon for geo fencing, then you need to change your algorithm to work with spherical coordinates. -180 longitude is the same as 180 longitude and point-in-polygon will break in such situation.
Relating to kobers answer I worked it out with more readable clean code and changed the longitudes that crosses the date border:
public bool IsPointInPolygon(List<PointPosition> polygon, double latitude, double longitude)
{
bool isInIntersection = false;
int actualPointIndex = 0;
int pointIndexBeforeActual = polygon.Count - 1;
var offset = calculateLonOffsetFromDateLine(polygon);
longitude = longitude < 0.0 ? longitude + offset : longitude;
foreach (var actualPointPosition in polygon)
{
var p1Lat = actualPointPosition.Latitude;
var p1Lon = actualPointPosition.Longitude;
var p0Lat = polygon[pointIndexBeforeActual].Latitude;
var p0Lon = polygon[pointIndexBeforeActual].Longitude;
if (p1Lon < 0.0) p1Lon += offset;
if (p0Lon < 0.0) p0Lon += offset;
// Jordan curve theorem - odd even rule algorithm
if (isPointLatitudeBetweenPolyLine(p0Lat, p1Lat, latitude)
&& isPointRightFromPolyLine(p0Lat, p0Lon, p1Lat, p1Lon, latitude, longitude))
{
isInIntersection = !isInIntersection;
}
pointIndexBeforeActual = actualPointIndex;
actualPointIndex++;
}
return isInIntersection;
}
private double calculateLonOffsetFromDateLine(List<PointPosition> polygon)
{
double offset = 0.0;
var maxLonPoly = polygon.Max(x => x.Longitude);
var minLonPoly = polygon.Min(x => x.Longitude);
if (Math.Abs(minLonPoly - maxLonPoly) > 180)
{
offset = 360.0;
}
return offset;
}
private bool isPointLatitudeBetweenPolyLine(double polyLinePoint1Lat, double polyLinePoint2Lat, double poiLat)
{
return polyLinePoint2Lat <= poiLat && poiLat < polyLinePoint1Lat || polyLinePoint1Lat <= poiLat && poiLat < polyLinePoint2Lat;
}
private bool isPointRightFromPolyLine(double polyLinePoint1Lat, double polyLinePoint1Lon, double polyLinePoint2Lat, double polyLinePoint2Lon, double poiLat, double poiLon)
{
// lon <(lon1-lon2)*(latp-lat2)/(lat1-lat2)+lon2
return poiLon < (polyLinePoint1Lon - polyLinePoint2Lon) * (poiLat - polyLinePoint2Lat) / (polyLinePoint1Lat - polyLinePoint2Lat) + polyLinePoint2Lon;
}
I add one detail to help people who live in the... south of earth!!
If you're in Brazil (that's my case), our GPS coord are all negatives.
And all these algo give wrong results.
The easiest way if to use the absolute values of the Lat and Long of all point. And in that case Jan Kobersky's algo is perfect.
Check if a point is inside a polygon or not -
Consider the polygon which has vertices a1,a2,a3,a4,a5. The following set of steps should help in ascertaining whether point P lies inside the polygon or outside.
Compute the vector area of the triangle formed by edge a1->a2 and the vectors connecting a2 to P and P to a1. Similarly, compute the vector area of the each of the possible triangles having one side as the side of the polygon and the other two connecting P to that side.
For a point to be inside a polygon, each of the triangles need to have positive area. Even if one of the triangles have a negative area then the point P stands out of the polygon.
In order to compute the area of a triangle given vectors representing its 3 edges, refer to http://www.jtaylor1142001.net/calcjat/Solutions/VCrossProduct/VCPATriangle.htm
The problem is easier if your polygon is convex. If so, you can do a simple test for each line to see if the point is on the inside or outside of that line (extending to infinity in both directions). Otherwise, for concave polygons, draw an imaginary ray from your point out to infinity (in any direction). Count how many times it crosses a boundary line. Odd means the point is inside, even means the point is outside.
This last algorithm is trickier than it looks. You will have to be very careful about what happens when your imaginary ray exactly hits one of the polygon's vertices.
If your imaginary ray goes in the -x direction, you can choose only to count lines that include at least one point whose y coordinate is strictly less than the y coordinate of your point. This is how you get most of the weird edge cases to work correctly.
If you have a simple polygon (none of the lines cross) and you don't have holes you can also triangulate the polygon, which you are probably going to do anyway in a GIS app to draw a TIN, then test for points in each triangle. If you have a small number of edges to the polygon but a large number of points this is fast.
For an interesting point in triangle see link text
Otherwise definately use the winding rule rather than edge crossing, edge crossing has real problems with points on edges, which if your data is generated form a GPS with limited precision is very likely.
the polygon is defined as a sequential list of point pairs A, B, C .... A.
no side A-B, B-C ... crosses any other side
Determine box Xmin, Xmax, Ymin, Ymax
case 1 the test point P lies outside the box
case 2 the test point P lies inside the box:
Determine the 'diameter' D of the box {[Xmin,Ymin] - [Xmax, Ymax]} ( and add a little extra to avoid possible confusion with D being on a side)
Determine the gradients M of all sides
Find a gradient Mt most different from all gradients M
The test line runs from P at gradient Mt a distance D.
Set the count of intersections to zero
For each of the sides A-B, B-C test for the intersection of P-D with a side
from its start up to but NOT INCLUDING its end. Increment the count of intersections
if required. Note that a zero distance from P to the intersection indicates that P is ON a side
An odd count indicates P is inside the polygon
I translated c# method in Php and I added many comments to understand code.Description of PolygonHelps:
Check if a point is inside or outside of a polygon. This procedure uses gps coordinates and it works when polygon has a little geographic area.
INPUT:$poly: array of Point: polygon vertices list; [{Point}, {Point}, ...];$point: point to check; Point: {"lat" => "x.xxx", "lng" => "y.yyy"}
When $c is false, the number of intersections with polygon is even, so the point is outside of polygon;When $c is true, the number of intersections with polygon is odd, so the point is inside of polygon;$n is the number of vertices in polygon;For each vertex in polygon, method calculates line through current vertex and previous vertex and check if the two lines have an intersection point.$c changes when intersection point exists.
So, method can return true if point is inside the polygon, else return false.
class PolygonHelps {
public static function isPointInPolygon(&$poly, $point){
$c = false;
$n = $j = count($poly);
for ($i = 0, $j = $n - 1; $i < $n; $j = $i++){
if ( ( ( ( $poly[$i]->lat <= $point->lat ) && ( $point->lat < $poly[$j]->lat ) )
|| ( ( $poly[$j]->lat <= $point->lat ) && ( $point->lat < $poly[$i]->lat ) ) )
&& ( $point->lng < ( $poly[$j]->lng - $poly[$i]->lng )
* ( $point->lat - $poly[$i]->lat )
/ ( $poly[$j]->lat - $poly[$i]->lat )
+ $poly[$i]->lng ) ){
$c = !$c;
}
}
return $c;
}
}
Jan's answer is great.
Here is the same code using the GeoCoordinate class instead.
using System.Device.Location;
...
public static bool IsPointInPolygon(List<GeoCoordinate> poly, GeoCoordinate point)
{
int i, j;
bool c = false;
for (i = 0, j = poly.Count - 1; i < poly.Count; j = i++)
{
if ((((poly[i].Latitude <= point.Latitude) && (point.Latitude < poly[j].Latitude))
|| ((poly[j].Latitude <= point.Latitude) && (point.Latitude < poly[i].Latitude)))
&& (point.Longitude < (poly[j].Longitude - poly[i].Longitude) * (point.Latitude - poly[i].Latitude)
/ (poly[j].Latitude - poly[i].Latitude) + poly[i].Longitude))
c = !c;
}
return c;
}
You can try this simple class https://github.com/xopbatgh/sb-polygon-pointer
It is easy to deal with it
You just insert polygon coordinates into array
Ask library is desired point with lat/lng inside the polygon
$polygonBox = [
[55.761515, 37.600375],
[55.759428, 37.651156],
[55.737112, 37.649566],
[55.737649, 37.597301],
];
$sbPolygonEngine = new sbPolygonEngine($polygonBox);
$isCrosses = $sbPolygonEngine->isCrossesWith(55.746768, 37.625605);
// $isCrosses is boolean
(answer was returned from deleted by myself because initially it was formatted wrong)

What is an Efficient algorithm to find Area of Overlapping Rectangles

My situation
Input: a set of rectangles
each rect is comprised of 4 doubles like this: (x0,y0,x1,y1)
they are not "rotated" at any angle, all they are "normal" rectangles that go "up/down" and "left/right" with respect to the screen
they are randomly placed - they may be touching at the edges, overlapping , or not have any contact
I will have several hundred rectangles
this is implemented in C#
I need to find
The area that is formed by their overlap - all the area in the canvas that more than one rectangle "covers" (for example with two rectangles, it would be the intersection)
I don't need the geometry of the overlap - just the area (example: 4 sq inches)
Overlaps shouldn't be counted multiple times - so for example imagine 3 rects that have the same size and position - they are right on top of each other - this area should be counted once (not three times)
Example
The image below contains thre rectangles: A,B,C
A and B overlap (as indicated by dashes)
B and C overlap (as indicated by dashes)
What I am looking for is the area where the dashes are shown
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--------------BBB
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--------------BBB
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--------------BBB
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--------------BBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBB-----------CCCCCCCC
BBBBBB-----------CCCCCCCC
BBBBBB-----------CCCCCCCC
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
An efficient way of computing this area is to use a sweep algorithm. Let us assume that we sweep a vertical line L(x) through the union of rectangles U:
first of all, you need to build an event queue Q, which is, in this case, the ordered list of all x-coordinates (left and right) of the rectangles.
during the sweep, you should maintain a 1D datastructure, which should give you the total length of the intersection of L(x) and U. The important thing is that this length is constant between two consecutive events q and q' of Q. So, if l(q) denotes the total length of L(q+) (i.e. L just on the rightside of q) intersected with U, the area swept by L between events q and q' is exactly l(q)*(q' - q).
you just have to sum up all these swept areas to get the total one.
We still have to solve the 1D problem. You want a 1D structure, which computes dynamically a union of (vertical) segments. By dynamically, I mean that you sometimes add a new segment, and sometimes remove one.
I already detailed in my answer to this collapsing ranges question how to do it in a static way (which is in fact a 1D sweep). So if you want something simple, you can directly apply that (by recomputing the union for each event). If you want something more efficient, you just need to adapt it a bit:
assuming that you know the union of segments S1...Sn consists of disjoints segments D1...Dk. Adding Sn+1 is very easy, you just have to locate both ends of Sn+1 amongs the ends of D1...Dk.
assuming that you know the union of segments S1...Sn consists of disjoints segments D1...Dk, removing segment Si (assuming that Si was included in Dj) means recomputing the union of segments that Dj consisted of, except Si (using the static algorithm).
This is your dynamic algorithm. Assuming that you will use sorted sets with log-time location queries to represent D1...Dk, this is probably the most efficient non-specialized method you can get.
One way-out approach is to plot it to a canvas! Draw each rectangle using a semi-transparent colour. The .NET runtime will be doing the drawing in optimised, native code - or even using a hardware accelerator.
Then, you have to read-back the pixels. Is each pixel the background colour, the rectangle colour, or another colour? The only way it can be another colour is if two or more rectangles overlapped...
If this is too much of a cheat, I'd recommend the quad-tree as another answerer did, or the r-tree.
The simplest solution
import numpy as np
A = np.zeros((100, 100))
B = np.zeros((100, 100))
A[rect1.top : rect1.bottom, rect1.left : rect1.right] = 1
B[rect2.top : rect2.bottom, rect2.left : rect2.right] = 1
area_of_union = np.sum((A + B) > 0)
area_of_intersect = np.sum((A + B) > 1)
In this example, we create two zero-matrices that are the size of the canvas. For each rectangle, fill one of these matrices with ones where the rectangle takes up space. Then sum the matrices. Now sum(A+B > 0) is the area of the union, and sum(A+B > 1) is the area of the overlap. This example can easily generalize to multiple rectangles.
This is some quick and dirty code that I used in the TopCoder SRM 160 Div 2.
t = top
b = botttom
l = left
r = right
public class Rect
{
public int t, b, l, r;
public Rect(int _l, int _b, int _r, int _t)
{
t = _t;
b = _b;
l = _l;
r = _r;
}
public bool Intersects(Rect R)
{
return !(l > R.r || R.l > r || R.b > t || b > R.t);
}
public Rect Intersection(Rect R)
{
if(!this.Intersects(R))
return new Rect(0,0,0,0);
int [] horiz = {l, r, R.l, R.r};
Array.Sort(horiz);
int [] vert = {b, t, R.b, R.t};
Array.Sort(vert);
return new Rect(horiz[1], vert[1], horiz[2], vert[2]);
}
public int Area()
{
return (t - b)*(r-l);
}
public override string ToString()
{
return l + " " + b + " " + r + " " + t;
}
}
Here's something that off the top of my head sounds like it might work:
Create a dictionary with a double key, and a list of rectangle+boolean values, like this:
Dictionary< Double, List< KeyValuePair< Rectangle, Boolean>>> rectangles;
For each rectangle in your set, find the corresponding list for the x0 and the x1 values, and add the rectangle to that list, with a boolean value of true for x0, and false for x1. This way you now have a complete list of all the x-coordinates that each rectangle either enters (true) or leaves (false) the x-direction
Grab all the keys from that dictionary (all the distinct x-coordinates), sort them, and loop through them in order, make sure you can get at both the current x-value, and the next one as well (you need them both). This gives you individual strips of rectangles
Maintain a set of rectangles you're currently looking at, which starts out empty. For each x-value you iterate over in point 3, if the rectangle is registered with a true value, add it to the set, otherwise remove it.
For a strip, sort the rectangles by their y-coordinate
Loop through the rectangles in the strip, counting overlapping distances (unclear to me as of yet how to do this efficiently)
Calculate width of strip times height of overlapping distances to get areas
Example, 5 rectangles, draw on top of each other, from a to e:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
aaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddddddddddddddbbbbbb
aaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddddddddddddddbbbbbb
ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
ddddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ddddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ddddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ccccccccddddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ccccccccddddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
cccccccccccc eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
cccccccccccc eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
cccccccccccc
cccccccccccc
Here's the list of x-coordinates:
v v v v v v v v v
|aaaaaaa|aa|aaaa | bbbbbbbbbb|bb|bbb
|aaaaaaa|aa|aaaa | bbbbbbbbbb|bb|bbb
|aaaaaaa|aa|aaaa | bbbbbbbbbb|bb|bbb
|aaaaaaa|aa|aaaa | bbbbbbbbbb|bb|bbb
|aaaaaaaddd|dddddddddd|ddddddddddddddbb|bbb
|aaaaaaaddd|dddddddddd|ddddddddddddddbb|bbb
| ddd|dddddddddd|dddddddddddddd |
| ddd|dddddddddd|dddddddddddddd |
| ddd|ddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
| ddd|ddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
| ddd|ddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ccccccccddd|ddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ccccccccddd|ddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
cccccccccccc eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
cccccccccccc eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
cccccccccccc
cccccccccccc
The list would be (where each v is simply given a coordinate starting at 0 and going up):
0: +a, +c
1: +d
2: -c
3: -a
4: +e
5: +b
6: -d
7: -e
8: -b
Each strip would thus be (rectangles sorted from top to bottom):
0-1: a, c
1-2: a, d, c
2-3: a, d
3-4: d
4-5: d, e
5-6: b, d, e
6-7: b, e
7-8: b
for each strip, the overlap would be:
0-1: none
1-2: a/d, d/c
2-3: a/d
3-4: none
4-5: d/e
5-6: b/d, d/e
6-7: none
7-8: none
I'd imagine that a variation of the sort + enter/leave algorithm for the top-bottom check would be doable as well:
sort the rectangles we're currently analyzing in the strip, top to bottom, for rectangles with the same top-coordinate, sort them by bottom coordinate as well
iterate through the y-coordinates, and when you enter a rectangle, add it to the set, when you leave a rectangle, remove it from the set
whenever the set has more than one rectangle, you have overlap (and if you make sure to add/remove all rectangles that have the same top/bottom coordinate you're currently looking at, multiple overlapping rectangles would not be a problem
For the 1-2 strip above, you would iterate like this:
0. empty set, zero sum
1. enter a, add a to set (1 rectangle in set)
2. enter d, add d to set (>1 rectangles in set = overlap, store this y-coordinate)
3. leave a, remove a from set (now back from >1 rectangles in set, add to sum: y - stored_y
4. enter c, add c to set (>1 rectangles in set = overlap, store this y-coordinate)
5. leave d, remove d from set (now back from >1 rectangles in set, add to sum: y - stored_y)
6. multiply sum with width of strip to get overlapping areas
You would not actually have to maintain an actual set here either, just the count of the rectangles you're inside, whenever this goes from 1 to 2, store the y, and whenever it goes from 2 down to 1, calculate current y - stored y, and sum this difference.
Hope this was understandable, and as I said, this is off the top of my head, not tested in any way.
Using the example:
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 +---+---+
| |
2 + A +---+---+
| | B |
3 + + +---+---+
| | | | |
4 +---+---+---+---+ +
| |
5 + C +
| |
6 +---+---+
1) collect all the x coordinates (both left and right) into a list, then sort it and remove duplicates
1 3 4 5 6
2) collect all the y coordinates (both top and bottom) into a list, then sort it and remove duplicates
1 2 3 4 6
3) create a 2D array by number of gaps between the unique x coordinates * number of gaps between the unique y coordinates.
4 * 4
4) paint all the rectangles into this grid, incrementing the count of each cell it occurs over:
1 3 4 5 6
1 +---+
| 1 | 0 0 0
2 +---+---+---+
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0
3 +---+---+---+---+
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
4 +---+---+---+---+
0 0 | 1 | 1 |
6 +---+---+
5) the sum total of the areas of the cells in the grid that have a count greater than one is the area of overlap. For better efficiency in sparse use-cases, you can actually keep a running total of the area as you paint the rectangles, each time you move a cell from 1 to 2.
In the question, the rectangles are described as being four doubles. Doubles typically contain rounding errors, and error might creep into your computed area of overlap. If the legal coordinates are at finite points, consider using an integer representation.
PS using the hardware accelerator as in my other answer is not such a shabby idea, if the resolution is acceptable. Its also easy to implement in a lot less code than the approach I outline above. Horses for courses.
Here's the code I wrote for the area sweep algorithm:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class Rectangle {
public:
int x[2], y[2];
Rectangle(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2) {
x[0] = x1;
y[0] = y1;
x[1] = x2;
y[1] = y2;
};
void print(void) {
cout << "Rect: " << x[0] << " " << y[0] << " " << x[1] << " " << y[1] << " " <<endl;
};
};
// return the iterator of rec in list
vector<Rectangle *>::iterator bin_search(vector<Rectangle *> &list, int begin, int end, Rectangle *rec) {
cout << begin << " " <<end <<endl;
int mid = (begin+end)/2;
if (list[mid]->y[0] == rec->y[0]) {
if (list[mid]->y[1] == rec->y[1])
return list.begin() + mid;
else if (list[mid]->y[1] < rec->y[1]) {
if (mid == end)
return list.begin() + mid+1;
return bin_search(list,mid+1,mid,rec);
}
else {
if (mid == begin)
return list.begin()+mid;
return bin_search(list,begin,mid-1,rec);
}
}
else if (list[mid]->y[0] < rec->y[0]) {
if (mid == end) {
return list.begin() + mid+1;
}
return bin_search(list, mid+1, end, rec);
}
else {
if (mid == begin) {
return list.begin() + mid;
}
return bin_search(list, begin, mid-1, rec);
}
}
// add rect to rects
void add_rec(Rectangle *rect, vector<Rectangle *> &rects) {
if (rects.size() == 0) {
rects.push_back(rect);
}
else {
vector<Rectangle *>::iterator it = bin_search(rects, 0, rects.size()-1, rect);
rects.insert(it, rect);
}
}
// remove rec from rets
void remove_rec(Rectangle *rect, vector<Rectangle *> &rects) {
vector<Rectangle *>::iterator it = bin_search(rects, 0, rects.size()-1, rect);
rects.erase(it);
}
// calculate the total vertical length covered by rectangles in the active set
int vert_dist(vector<Rectangle *> as) {
int n = as.size();
int totallength = 0;
int start, end;
int i = 0;
while (i < n) {
start = as[i]->y[0];
end = as[i]->y[1];
while (i < n && as[i]->y[0] <= end) {
if (as[i]->y[1] > end) {
end = as[i]->y[1];
}
i++;
}
totallength += end-start;
}
return totallength;
}
bool mycomp1(Rectangle* a, Rectangle* b) {
return (a->x[0] < b->x[0]);
}
bool mycomp2(Rectangle* a, Rectangle* b) {
return (a->x[1] < b->x[1]);
}
int findarea(vector<Rectangle *> rects) {
vector<Rectangle *> start = rects;
vector<Rectangle *> end = rects;
sort(start.begin(), start.end(), mycomp1);
sort(end.begin(), end.end(), mycomp2);
// active set
vector<Rectangle *> as;
int n = rects.size();
int totalarea = 0;
int current = start[0]->x[0];
int next;
int i = 0, j = 0;
// big loop
while (j < n) {
cout << "loop---------------"<<endl;
// add all recs that start at current
while (i < n && start[i]->x[0] == current) {
cout << "add" <<endl;
// add start[i] to AS
add_rec(start[i], as);
cout << "after" <<endl;
i++;
}
// remove all recs that end at current
while (j < n && end[j]->x[1] == current) {
cout << "remove" <<endl;
// remove end[j] from AS
remove_rec(end[j], as);
cout << "after" <<endl;
j++;
}
// find next event x
if (i < n && j < n) {
if (start[i]->x[0] <= end[j]->x[1]) {
next = start[i]->x[0];
}
else {
next = end[j]->x[1];
}
}
else if (j < n) {
next = end[j]->x[1];
}
// distance to next event
int horiz = next - current;
cout << "horiz: " << horiz <<endl;
// figure out vertical dist
int vert = vert_dist(as);
cout << "vert: " << vert <<endl;
totalarea += vert * horiz;
current = next;
}
return totalarea;
}
int main() {
vector<Rectangle *> rects;
rects.push_back(new Rectangle(0,0,1,1));
rects.push_back(new Rectangle(1,0,2,3));
rects.push_back(new Rectangle(0,0,3,3));
rects.push_back(new Rectangle(1,0,5,1));
cout << findarea(rects) <<endl;
}
You can simplify this problem quite a bit if you split each rectangle into smaller rectangles. Collect all of the X and Y coordinates of all the rectangles, and these become your split points - if a rectangle crosses the line, split it in two. When you're done, you have a list of rectangles that overlap either 0% or 100%, if you sort them it should be easy to find the identical ones.
There is a solution listed at the link http://codercareer.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-27-area-of-rectangles.html for finding the total area of multiple rectangles such that the overlapped area is counted only once.
The above solution can be extended to compute only the overlapped area(and that too only once even if the overlapped area is covered by multiple rectangles) with horizontal sweep lines for every pair of consecutive vertical sweep lines.
If aim is just to find out the total area covered by the all the rectangles, then horizontal sweep lines are not needed and just a merge of all the rectangles between two vertical sweep lines would give the area.
On the other hand, if you want to compute the overlapped area only, the horizontal sweep lines are needed to find out how many rectangles are overlapping in between vertical (y1, y2) sweep lines.
Here is the working code for the solution I implemented in Java.
import java.io.*;
import java.util.*;
class Solution {
static class Rectangle{
int x;
int y;
int dx;
int dy;
Rectangle(int x, int y, int dx, int dy){
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.dx = dx;
this.dy = dy;
}
Range getBottomLeft(){
return new Range(x, y);
}
Range getTopRight(){
return new Range(x + dx, y + dy);
}
#Override
public int hashCode(){
return (x+y+dx+dy)/4;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object other){
Rectangle o = (Rectangle) other;
return o.x == this.x && o.y == this.y && o.dx == this.dx && o.dy == this.dy;
}
#Override
public String toString(){
return String.format("X = %d, Y = %d, dx : %d, dy : %d", x, y, dx, dy);
}
}
static class RW{
Rectangle r;
boolean start;
RW (Rectangle r, boolean start){
this.r = r;
this.start = start;
}
#Override
public int hashCode(){
return r.hashCode() + (start ? 1 : 0);
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object other){
RW o = (RW)other;
return o.start == this.start && o.r.equals(this.r);
}
#Override
public String toString(){
return "Rectangle : " + r.toString() + ", start = " + this.start;
}
}
static class Range{
int l;
int u;
public Range(int l, int u){
this.l = l;
this.u = u;
}
#Override
public int hashCode(){
return (l+u)/2;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object other){
Range o = (Range) other;
return o.l == this.l && o.u == this.u;
}
#Override
public String toString(){
return String.format("L = %d, U = %d", l, u);
}
}
static class XComp implements Comparator<RW>{
#Override
public int compare(RW rw1, RW rw2){
//TODO : revisit these values.
Integer x1 = -1;
Integer x2 = -1;
if(rw1.start){
x1 = rw1.r.x;
}else{
x1 = rw1.r.x + rw1.r.dx;
}
if(rw2.start){
x2 = rw2.r.x;
}else{
x2 = rw2.r.x + rw2.r.dx;
}
return x1.compareTo(x2);
}
}
static class YComp implements Comparator<RW>{
#Override
public int compare(RW rw1, RW rw2){
//TODO : revisit these values.
Integer y1 = -1;
Integer y2 = -1;
if(rw1.start){
y1 = rw1.r.y;
}else{
y1 = rw1.r.y + rw1.r.dy;
}
if(rw2.start){
y2 = rw2.r.y;
}else{
y2 = rw2.r.y + rw2.r.dy;
}
return y1.compareTo(y2);
}
}
public static void main(String []args){
Rectangle [] rects = new Rectangle[4];
rects[0] = new Rectangle(10, 10, 10, 10);
rects[1] = new Rectangle(15, 10, 10, 10);
rects[2] = new Rectangle(20, 10, 10, 10);
rects[3] = new Rectangle(25, 10, 10, 10);
int totalArea = getArea(rects, false);
System.out.println("Total Area : " + totalArea);
int overlapArea = getArea(rects, true);
System.out.println("Overlap Area : " + overlapArea);
}
static int getArea(Rectangle []rects, boolean overlapOrTotal){
printArr(rects);
// step 1: create two wrappers for every rectangle
RW []rws = getWrappers(rects);
printArr(rws);
// steps 2 : sort rectangles by their x-coordinates
Arrays.sort(rws, new XComp());
printArr(rws);
// step 3 : group the rectangles in every range.
Map<Range, List<Rectangle>> rangeGroups = groupRects(rws, true);
for(Range xrange : rangeGroups.keySet()){
List<Rectangle> xRangeRects = rangeGroups.get(xrange);
System.out.println("Range : " + xrange);
System.out.println("Rectangles : ");
for(Rectangle rectx : xRangeRects){
System.out.println("\t" + rectx);
}
}
// step 4 : iterate through each of the pairs and their rectangles
int sum = 0;
for(Range range : rangeGroups.keySet()){
List<Rectangle> rangeRects = rangeGroups.get(range);
sum += getOverlapOrTotalArea(rangeRects, range, overlapOrTotal);
}
return sum;
}
static Map<Range, List<Rectangle>> groupRects(RW []rws, boolean isX){
//group the rws with either x or y coordinates.
Map<Range, List<Rectangle>> rangeGroups = new HashMap<Range, List<Rectangle>>();
List<Rectangle> rangeRects = new ArrayList<Rectangle>();
int i=0;
int prev = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
while(i < rws.length){
int curr = isX ? (rws[i].start ? rws[i].r.x : rws[i].r.x + rws[i].r.dx): (rws[i].start ? rws[i].r.y : rws[i].r.y + rws[i].r.dy);
if(prev < curr){
Range nRange = new Range(prev, curr);
rangeGroups.put(nRange, rangeRects);
rangeRects = new ArrayList<Rectangle>(rangeRects);
}
prev = curr;
if(rws[i].start){
rangeRects.add(rws[i].r);
}else{
rangeRects.remove(rws[i].r);
}
i++;
}
return rangeGroups;
}
static int getOverlapOrTotalArea(List<Rectangle> rangeRects, Range range, boolean isOverlap){
//create horizontal sweep lines similar to vertical ones created above
// Step 1 : create wrappers again
RW []rws = getWrappers(rangeRects);
// steps 2 : sort rectangles by their y-coordinates
Arrays.sort(rws, new YComp());
// step 3 : group the rectangles in every range.
Map<Range, List<Rectangle>> yRangeGroups = groupRects(rws, false);
//step 4 : for every range if there are more than one rectangles then computer their area only once.
int sum = 0;
for(Range yRange : yRangeGroups.keySet()){
List<Rectangle> yRangeRects = yRangeGroups.get(yRange);
if(isOverlap){
if(yRangeRects.size() > 1){
sum += getArea(range, yRange);
}
}else{
if(yRangeRects.size() > 0){
sum += getArea(range, yRange);
}
}
}
return sum;
}
static int getArea(Range r1, Range r2){
return (r2.u-r2.l)*(r1.u-r1.l);
}
static RW[] getWrappers(Rectangle []rects){
RW[] wrappers = new RW[rects.length * 2];
for(int i=0,j=0;i<rects.length;i++, j+=2){
wrappers[j] = new RW(rects[i], true);
wrappers[j+1] = new RW(rects[i], false);
}
return wrappers;
}
static RW[] getWrappers(List<Rectangle> rects){
RW[] wrappers = new RW[rects.size() * 2];
for(int i=0,j=0;i<rects.size();i++, j+=2){
wrappers[j] = new RW(rects.get(i), true);
wrappers[j+1] = new RW(rects.get(i), false);
}
return wrappers;
}
static void printArr(Object []a){
for(int i=0; i < a.length;i++){
System.out.println(a[i]);
}
System.out.println();
}
The following answer should give the total Area only once.
it comes previous answers, but implemented now in C#.
It works also with floats (or double, if you need[it doesn't itterate over the VALUES).
Credits:
http://codercareer.blogspot.co.il/2011/12/no-27-area-of-rectangles.html
EDIT:
The OP asked for the overlapping area - thats obviously very simple:
var totArea = rects.Sum(x => x.Width * x.Height);
and then the answer is:
var overlappingArea =totArea-GetArea(rects)
Here is the code:
#region rectangle overlapping
/// <summary>
/// see algorithm for detecting overlapping areas here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/245245/3225391
/// or easier here:
/// http://codercareer.blogspot.co.il/2011/12/no-27-area-of-rectangles.html
/// </summary>
/// <param name="dim"></param>
/// <returns></returns>
public static float GetArea(RectangleF[] rects)
{
List<float> xs = new List<float>();
foreach (var item in rects)
{
xs.Add(item.X);
xs.Add(item.Right);
}
xs = xs.OrderBy(x => x).Cast<float>().ToList();
rects = rects.OrderBy(rec => rec.X).Cast<RectangleF>().ToArray();
float area = 0f;
for (int i = 0; i < xs.Count - 1; i++)
{
if (xs[i] == xs[i + 1])//not duplicate
continue;
int j = 0;
while (rects[j].Right < xs[i])
j++;
List<Range> rangesOfY = new List<Range>();
var rangeX = new Range(xs[i], xs[i + 1]);
GetRangesOfY(rects, j, rangeX, out rangesOfY);
area += GetRectArea(rangeX, rangesOfY);
}
return area;
}
private static void GetRangesOfY(RectangleF[] rects, int rectIdx, Range rangeX, out List<Range> rangesOfY)
{
rangesOfY = new List<Range>();
for (int j = rectIdx; j < rects.Length; j++)
{
if (rangeX.less < rects[j].Right && rangeX.greater > rects[j].Left)
{
rangesOfY = Range.AddRange(rangesOfY, new Range(rects[j].Top, rects[j].Bottom));
#if DEBUG
Range rectXRange = new Range(rects[j].Left, rects[j].Right);
#endif
}
}
}
static float GetRectArea(Range rangeX, List<Range> rangesOfY)
{
float width = rangeX.greater - rangeX.less,
area = 0;
foreach (var item in rangesOfY)
{
float height = item.greater - item.less;
area += width * height;
}
return area;
}
internal class Range
{
internal static List<Range> AddRange(List<Range> lst, Range rng2add)
{
if (lst.isNullOrEmpty())
{
return new List<Range>() { rng2add };
}
for (int i = lst.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
var item = lst[i];
if (item.IsOverlapping(rng2add))
{
rng2add.Merge(item);
lst.Remove(item);
}
}
lst.Add(rng2add);
return lst;
}
internal float greater, less;
public override string ToString()
{
return $"ln{less} gtn{greater}";
}
internal Range(float less, float greater)
{
this.less = less;
this.greater = greater;
}
private void Merge(Range rng2add)
{
this.less = Math.Min(rng2add.less, this.less);
this.greater = Math.Max(rng2add.greater, this.greater);
}
private bool IsOverlapping(Range rng2add)
{
return !(less > rng2add.greater || rng2add.less > greater);
//return
// this.greater < rng2add.greater && this.greater > rng2add.less
// || this.less > rng2add.less && this.less < rng2add.greater
// || rng2add.greater < this.greater && rng2add.greater > this.less
// || rng2add.less > this.less && rng2add.less < this.greater;
}
}
#endregion rectangle overlapping
If your rectangles are going to be sparse (mostly not intersecting) then it might be worth a look at recursive dimensional clustering. Otherwise a quad-tree seems to be the way to go (as has been mentioned by other posters.
This is a common problem in collision detection in computer games, so there is no shortage of resources suggesting ways to solve it.
Here is a nice blog post summarizing RCD.
Here is a Dr.Dobbs article summarizing various collision detection algorithms, which would be suitable.
This type of collision detection is often called AABB (Axis Aligned Bounding Boxes), that's a good starting point for a google search.
You can find the overlap on the x and on the y axis and multiply those.
int LineOverlap(int line1a, line1b, line2a, line2b)
{
// assume line1a <= line1b and line2a <= line2b
if (line1a < line2a)
{
if (line1b > line2b)
return line2b-line2a;
else if (line1b > line2a)
return line1b-line2a;
else
return 0;
}
else if (line2a < line1b)
return line2b-line1a;
else
return 0;
}
int RectangleOverlap(Rect rectA, rectB)
{
return LineOverlap(rectA.x1, rectA.x2, rectB.x1, rectB.x2) *
LineOverlap(rectA.y1, rectA.y2, rectB.y1, rectB.y2);
}
I found a different solution than the sweep algorithm.
Since your rectangles are all rectangular placed, the horizontal and vertical lines of the rectangles will form a rectangular irregular grid. You can 'paint' the rectangles on this grid; which means, you can determine which fields of the grid will be filled out. Since the grid lines are formed from the boundaries of the given rectangles, a field in this grid will always either completely empty or completely filled by an rectangle.
I had to solve the problem in Java, so here's my solution: http://pastebin.com/03mss8yf
This function calculates of the complete area occupied by the rectangles. If you are interested only in the 'overlapping' part, you must extend the code block between lines 70 and 72. Maybe you can use a second set to store which grid fields are used more than once. Your code between line 70 and 72 should be replaced with a block like:
GridLocation gl = new GridLocation(curX, curY);
if(usedLocations.contains(gl) && usedLocations2.add(gl)) {
ret += width*height;
} else {
usedLocations.add(gl);
}
The variable usedLocations2 here is of the same type as usedLocations; it will be constructed
at the same point.
I'm not really familiar with complexity calculations; so I don't know which of the two solutions (sweep or my grid solution) will perform/scale better.
Considering we have two rectangles (A and B) and we have their bottom left (x1,y1) and top right (x2,y2) coordination. The Using following piece of code you can calculate the overlapped area in C++.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int rectoverlap (int ax1, int ay1, int ax2, int ay2, int bx1, int by1, int bx2, int by2)
{
int width, heigh, area;
if (ax2<bx1 || ay2<by1 || ax1>bx2 || ay1>by2) {
cout << "Rectangles are not overlapped" << endl;
return 0;
}
if (ax2>=bx2 && bx1>=ax1){
width=bx2-bx1;
heigh=by2-by1;
} else if (bx2>=ax2 && ax1>=bx1) {
width=ax2-ax1;
heigh=ay2-ay1;
} else {
if (ax2>bx2){
width=bx2-ax1;
} else {
width=ax2-bx1;
}
if (ay2>by2){
heigh=by2-ay1;
} else {
heigh=ay2-by1;
}
}
area= heigh*width;
return (area);
}
int main()
{
int ax1,ay1,ax2,ay2,bx1,by1,bx2,by2;
cout << "Inter the x value for bottom left for rectangle A" << endl;
cin >> ax1;
cout << "Inter the y value for bottom left for rectangle A" << endl;
cin >> ay1;
cout << "Inter the x value for top right for rectangle A" << endl;
cin >> ax2;
cout << "Inter the y value for top right for rectangle A" << endl;
cin >> ay2;
cout << "Inter the x value for bottom left for rectangle B" << endl;
cin >> bx1;
cout << "Inter the y value for bottom left for rectangle B" << endl;
cin >> by1;
cout << "Inter the x value for top right for rectangle B" << endl;
cin >> bx2;
cout << "Inter the y value for top right for rectangle B" << endl;
cin >> by2;
cout << "The overlapped area is " << rectoverlap (ax1, ay1, ax2, ay2, bx1, by1, bx2, by2) << endl;
}
The post by user3048546 contains an error in the logic on lines 12-17. Here is a working implementation:
int rectoverlap (int ax1, int ay1, int ax2, int ay2, int bx1, int by1, int bx2, int by2)
{
int width, height, area;
if (ax2<bx1 || ay2<by1 || ax1>bx2 || ay1>by2) {
cout << "Rectangles are not overlapped" << endl;
return 0;
}
if (ax2>=bx2 && bx1>=ax1){
width=bx2-bx1;
} else if (bx2>=ax2 && ax1>=bx1) {
width=ax2-ax1;
} else if (ax2>bx2) {
width=bx2-ax1;
} else {
width=ax2-bx1;
}
if (ay2>=by2 && by1>=ay1){
height=by2-by1;
} else if (by2>=ay2 && ay1>=by1) {
height=ay2-ay1;
} else if (ay2>by2) {
height=by2-ay1;
} else {
height=ay2-by1;
}
area = heigh*width;
return (area);
}

Resources