For a collision algorithm I am developing, I need to find out how to reflect a line over another.
Line 1:
y=ax+b
Line 2:
y=cx+d
Line 3:
(a result of reflecting line 1 over line 2) y=ex+f
Is there any algebraic way to determine e and f in terms of a, b, c, and d?
I have run over this exact same problem before. Stay with me here...
This problem involves two parts:
1. Find the point at which they intersect
to find where two lines intersect, we use the two equations of the lines:
y = M1x + B1
y = M2x + B2
Using substitution:
M1x + B1 = M2x + B2
M1x - M2x = B2 - B1
x(M1 - M2) = B2 - B1
x = (B2 - B1) / (M1 - M2)
To find the y value, just plug it in:
y = M1x + B1
2. Find the slope of the line from the other two slopes.
The second is far trickier. Using trigonometry, it is not impossible.
Let L1 be the "base line." (With a slope of M1)
Let L2 be the line that is to be reflected over the "base line." (With a slope of M2)
Let L3 be our resulting line. (With a slope of M3)
The equation I used is as follows:
double M3 = ((2 * M1) + (M2 * pow(M1, 2)) - M2) / (2 * M1 * M2 - pow(M1, 2) + 1);
Straight from my C code.
It is important to note that both slopes should be defined. You can use L'Hopital's rule to get an equation when one of the slopes is approaching infinity.
ONWARD WITH THE EXPLANATION!
Here is a crude drawing of three lines.
L2 is reflected over L1, resulting in L3. Drawing is not exact.
The angle between L1 and L2, as well as L2 and L3, is labelled as R.\
Here are the facts:
M1 = tan(A1)
M2 = tan(A2)
M3 = tan(A3)
This comes from the definition of tangent.
A3 = R + A1
This is a little trickier to see, but if you draw a horizontal line at the point of intersection it becomes obvious.
Thus, our goal is to find tan(A3). To accomplish this, we need to find R. As we can see, R can be found in a triangle with A2 and the supplement of A1 as the other angles. Thus, we know:
R + (180 - A1) + A2 = 180
R - A1 + A2 = 0
R = A1 - A2
Let's take the tangent of both sides:
tan(R) = tan(A1 - A2)
From trigonometry, we know:
tan(R) = (tan(A1) - tan(A2)) / (1 + tan(A1)tan(A2))
R = arctan((tan(A1) - tan(A2) / (1 + tan(A1)tan(A2))
Arctan being inverse tangent. From our earlier formula, A3 = R + A1, we get:
A3 = arctan((tan(A1) - tan(A2) / (1 + tan(A1)tan(A2)) + A1
A3 = arctan((M1 - M2) / (1 + M1*M2)) + A1
But we don't want A3. We want tan(A3). So again, we take the tangent of both sides.
tan(A3) = M3 = tan(arctan((M1 - M2) / (1 + M1*M2)) + A1)
M3 = tan(arctan((M1 - M2) / (1 + M1*M2))) + tan(A1) / (1 - tan(arctan((M1 - M2) / (1 + M1*M2))) * tan(A1))
Unfortunately, that's disgustingly hideous. Replacing tangents with slopes and simplifying, we get
M3 = ((M1 - M2) / (1 + M1*M2)) + M1 / (1 - ((M1 - M2)/(1 + M1*M2)) * M1)
M3 = (M1 - M2 + M1*(1 + M1*M2)) / (1 + M1*M2 - M1*M1 + M1*M2)
M3 = (M1^2 * M2 + 2*M1 - M2) / (1 + 2*M1*M2 - M1^2)
Which is the exact same as the formula above. Sorry about all the ugly math. When M2 is completely vertical, you can use L'Hopital's rule to get
M3 = (M1^2 - 1) / 2*M1
If anyone is so inclined, check my math. But I'm tired right about now.
Assuming the two lines are not parallel to each other
Step 1:
First find the intersection of the line y = ax + b with line y = cx + d , that is by solving comes out to be
m = (d - b) / (c - a)
Step 2:
The final line has point of the form (x , ex + f) , so wjat we know is the line joining the point and the corresponding image is perpendicular to the mirror line AND the the midpoint of the first point and its image lies on the mirror line. Solving for first requirement ....
(Slope of line joining point and its image) * (Slope of the mirror line) = -1
we get ...
c * (e*pt + f - a*n - b)/( pt - n ) = -1 -----> The first equation .
Then the midpoint of the point and its image lie on the central line , i.e.
Y coordinate of the midpoint - ( c* x coordinate of midpoint + d) = 0
y coordinate of midpoint = (a*n + e*pt) / 2 and x coordinate = ( pt + n) / 2
putting it above we get...
(a*n + e*pt)c - c( pt + n) - 2d =0 ----> second equation
3.
now the point and its image make equal angles from the intersection point .... a simple way of saying that angle between mirror line , point line and image line , point line being equal ... therefore ... the tangent of angle between lines mI and mM is equal to that of mM and mP
equating we get
( mM + mP ) / ( 1 + mp*mM) =( mI - mM )/ (1 + mI*mM)
where mM = c , mI = e, and mP = a -----> third equation
put it in their respective
places you get three equations in three unknowns , pt , e and f and solve ... just x in place of n earlier and there you have your e , f in terms of a , b , c , d.
Solve it yourselves ....
However if they are parallel its simple , you have two equations in two variables use the midpoint method
Yet another method:
Matrix of affine transformation for reflection relatively to line y=ax+b (works for non-vertical lines!).
Let's pa = 1+a^2, ma = 1-a^2, then matrix is (from Nikulin's Computer Geometry book)
ma/pa 2a/pa 0
2a/pa -ma/pa 0
-2ab/pa 2b/pa 1
So we can get two arbitrary points at second line, apply this transform, and calculate new line equation
Related
As shown in the image below, I'm creating a program that will make a 2D animation of a truck that is made up of two articulated parts.
The truck pulls the trailer.
The trailer moves according to the docking axis on the truck.
Then, when the truck turns, the trailer should gradually align itself with the new angle of the truck, as it does in real life.
I would like to know if there is any formula or algorithm that does this calculation in an easy way.
I've already seen inverse kinematics equations, but I think for just 2 parts it would not be so complex.
Can anybody help me?
Let A be the midpoint under the front axle, B be the midpoint under the middle axle, and C be the midpoint under the rear axle. For simplicity assume that the hitch is at point B. These are all functions of time t, for example A(t) = (a_x(t), a_y(t).
The trick is this. B is moving directly towards A with the component of A's velocity in that direction. Or in symbols, dB/dt = (dA/dt).(A-B)/||A-B|| And similarly, dC/dt = (dB/dt).(B-C)/||B-C|| where . is the dot product.
This turns into a non-linear first-order system in 6 variables. This can be solved with normal techniques, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runge%E2%80%93Kutta_methods.
UPDATE: Added code
Here is a Python implementation. You can replace it with https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Runge-Kutta_method for your favorite language and your favorite linear algebra library. Or even hand-roll that.
For my example I started with A at (1, 1), B at (2, 1) and C at (2, 2). Then pulled A to the origin in steps of size 0.01. That can be altered to anything that you want.
#! /usr/bin/env python
import numpy
# Runga Kutta method.
def RK4(f):
return lambda t, y, dt: (
lambda dy1: (
lambda dy2: (
lambda dy3: (
lambda dy4: (dy1 + 2*dy2 + 2*dy3 + dy4)/6
)( dt * f( t + dt , y + dy3 ) )
)( dt * f( t + dt/2, y + dy2/2 ) )
)( dt * f( t + dt/2, y + dy1/2 ) )
)( dt * f( t , y ) )
# da is a function giving velocity of a at a time t.
# The other three are the positions of the three points.
def calculate_dy (da, A0, B0, C0):
l_ab = float(numpy.linalg.norm(A0 - B0))
l_bc = float(numpy.linalg.norm(B0 - C0))
# t is time, y = [A, B, C]
def update (t, y):
(A, B, C) = y
dA = da(t)
ab_unit = (A - B) / float(numpy.linalg.norm(A-B))
# The first term is the force. The second is a correction to
# cause roundoff errors in length to be selfcorrecting.
dB = (dA.dot(ab_unit) + float(numpy.linalg.norm(A-B))/l_ab - l_ab) * ab_unit
bc_unit = (B - C) / float(numpy.linalg.norm(B-C))
# The first term is the force. The second is a correction to
# cause roundoff errors in length to be selfcorrecting.
dC = (dB.dot(bc_unit) + float(numpy.linalg.norm(B-C))/l_bc - l_bc) * bc_unit
return numpy.array([dA, dB, dC])
return RK4(update)
A0 = numpy.array([1.0, 1.0])
B0 = numpy.array([2.0, 1.0])
C0 = numpy.array([2.0, 2.0])
dy = calculate_dy(lambda t: numpy.array([-1.0, -1.0]), A0, B0, C0)
t, y, dt = 0., numpy.array([A0, B0, C0]), .02
while t <= 1.01:
print( (t, y) )
t, y = t + dt, y + dy( t, y, dt )
By the answers I saw, I realized that the solution is not really simple and will have to be solved by an Inverse Kinematics algorithm.
This site is an example and it is a just a start, although it still does not solve everything, since the point C is fixed and in the case of the truck it should move.
Based on this Analytic Two-Bone IK in 2D article, I made a fully functional model in Geogebra, where the nucleus consists of two simple mathematical equations.
I was looking at the problem and the discussion here: Easy interview question got harder: given numbers 1..100, find the missing number(s)
One of the user provided a solution using following equation.
k1 + k2 = x
k1^2 + k2^2 = y
Substituting provides (x-k2)^2 + k2^2 = y
I am trying to solve this equation further and come up with a C program to solve the problem of finding duplicates.
Inspite of spending lot of time I couldn't solve this equation to get k1 or k2 one side. I always ended up with k1 or k2 on both side of equation.
Any help is appreciated.
Expand the equation
(x - k2)^2 + k2^2 = y
and get
x^2 - 2xk2 + 2k2^2 = y
or
2k2^2 - 2xk2 + x^2 - y = 0
Now use the formula for solving the quadratic equation az^2 + bz + c = 0 which is (-b +/- sqrt(b^2 - 4ac))/2a. Only that in our case z=k2. So
k2 = (2x +/- sqrt(4x^2 - 8(x^2 - y))) / 4
or
k2 = (x +/- sqrt(x^2 - 2(x^2 - y))) / 2
= (x +/- sqrt(2y - x^2)) / 2
and you can put
k2 = (x + sqrt(2y - x^2)) / 2
k1 = (x - sqrt(2y - x^2)) / 2.
I have an equation (parentheses are used because of VBA code)
Y=(P/(12E((bt^3)/12))*A
and i know every variables but not "b". Is there any way how to ask Wolfram Alpha to "redefine" (not solve) equation so I can see something like following: I tried to do it manually (but result is not OK)
b=((P/EY)*12A))/t^3
I wish to see how right equation will look.
Original equation is on picture below
where
equation in [,] I simplified by A
I'm not sure if there's a way to tell Wolfram|Alpha to rearrange for a particular variable; in general it will usually try to rearrange for x or y.
If I substitute b for x in your equation and use the following query:
solve Y - (P/(12E((xt^3)/12))*A) = 0
then Wolfram Alpha returns the result you're looking for: x (b) expressed in terms of the other variables. Specifically:
x = A P / (E t^3 Y) for tY != 0 and AP != 0
I know that your question was about Wolfram Alpha, that you do not want to "solve", but here is one way you could do it in Mathematica using your real question. I renamed I into J because I is a reserved symbol in Mathematica for the imaginary unit.
J = b t^3/12;
expr = (P / (12 E J) ) (4 L1^3 + 3 R ( 2 Pi L1^2 + Pi R^2 + 8 L1 R ) + 12 L2 (L1 + R)^2)
Solve[ Y == expr , b]
Result
{{b -> (P (4 L1^3 + 12 L1^2 L2 + 24 L1 L2 R + 6 L1^2 \[Pi] R + 24 L1 R^2 + 12 L2 R^2 + 3 \[Pi] R^3))/(E t^3 Y)}}
I'm struggling to figure out an algorithm to find the intersection of two linear equations like:
f(x)=2x+4
g(x)=x+2
I'd like to use the method where you set f (x)=g (x) and solve x, and I'd like to stay away from cross product.
Does anyone have any suggestion to how an algorithm like that would look like?
If your input lines are in slope-intercept form, an algorithm is an over-kill as there is a direct formula to calculate their point of intersection. It's given on a Wikipedia page and you can understand it as explained below.
Given the equations of the lines: The x and y coordinates of the
point of intersection of two non-vertical lines can easily be found
using the following substitutions and rearrangements.
Suppose that two lines have the equations y = ax + c and y = bx + d where a
and b are the slopes (gradients) of the lines and where c and d are
the y-intercepts of the lines. At the point where the two lines
intersect (if they do), both y coordinates will be the same, hence the
following equality:
ax + c = bx + d.
We can rearrange this expression in order to extract the
value of x,
ax - bx = d - c, and so,
x = (d-c)/(a-b).
To find the y coordinate, all we need to do is substitute the value of x into > either one of the two line equations. For example, into the first:
y=(a*(d-c)/(a-b))+c.
Hence, the Point of Intersection is {(d-c)/(a-b), (a*(d-c)/(a-b))+c}
Note: If a = b then the two lines are parallel. If c ≠ d as well, the lines
are different and there is no intersection, otherwise the two lines are
identical.
Given:
ax + b = cx + d
ax = cx + d - b
ax - cx = d - b
x(a - c) = d - b
Therefore, x = (d - b) / (a - c)
In your example, let a = 2, b = 4, c = 1 d = 2
x = (2 - 4) / (2 - 1)
x = -2 / 1
x = -2
General solution. Let
f(x) = a1x + b1 ....... g(x) = a2x + b2
Special cases:
a1 == a2 and b1 == b2 : lines coincide
a1 == a2 and b1 != b2 : lines are parallel, no intersection
General case: a1 != a2
X = (b2 - b1) / (a1 - a2) ....and... Y = (a1b2 - a2b1) / (a1 - a2)
I don't remember what cross products are in the context of equations.
One way to solve these is to set them equal to each other, solve for x, then use that value to solve for y:
2x + 4 = x + 2
2x + 2 = x
x = -2
y = f(x)
= g(x)
= x + 2
= -2 + 2
= 0
Solution: (-2, 0)
Ok, by far, I guess many people know the famous fast inverse square root (see more on Writing your own square root function and 0x5f3759df)
Here is the code
float FastInvSqrt(float x) {
float xhalf = 0.5f * x;
int i = *(int*)&x; // evil floating point bit level hacking
i = 0x5f3759df - (i >> 1); // what the fuck?
x = *(float*)&i;
x = x*(1.5f-(xhalf*x*x)); // one Newton Method iteration
return x;
}
Ok, i do NOT need to know more how magic 0x5f3759df is.
What I don't understand is why x*(1.5f-(xhalf*x*x)) is a Newton Method iteration?
I tried analyse but just can't get it.
So let's assume r is the real number and x is the inverse sqrt of r.
1 / (x^2) = r, then f(x) = r*(x^2)-1 and f'(x) = 2 * r * x
So one iteration should be x1 = x - f(x)/f'(x) = x / 2 + 1 / (2 * r * x), right?
How comes x * (1.5 - ((r / 2) * x * x))? (note I replaced xhalf with r / 2 here)
Edit
Ok f(x) = x^2 - 1/r is another form, let me calculate
f(x) = x^2 - 1 / r
f'(x) = 2 * x
So x1 = x - (f(x)/f'(x)) = x - (x^2 -(1 / r))/(2*x) = x / 2 + 1 / (2 * r * x), still it is quite different from the formula used in the code, right?
Wikipedia says function is (using your variable names):
f(x) = 1/x2 - r
Then we have:
f'(x) = -2/x3
And iteration is:
x - f(x)/f'(x) =
x - (1/x2 - r)/(-2 / x3) =
x + x3 /2 * (1/x2 - r) =
x + x/2 - r/2 * x3 =
x * (1.5 - r/2 * x * x)
And this is what you see in code.
Newton's method is defined in terms of the iteration
xi+1 = xi - f(xi) / f'(xi)
(where f'(x) is the first derivative of f(x)). To find the inverse root of r, one needs to find the zero of the function f(x) = x - 1/sqrt(r) (or, equivalently, f(x) = x2 - 1/r). Simply take the derivative, plug it in to the definition of the iteration step, simplify, and you have your answer.
Actually, the exact form used in the code comes from using a third equivalent form:
f(x) = x-2 - r
See this article for the detailed steps of the derivation. It's also derived in the Wikipedia article on fast inverse square root.