Related
Is there any algorithm / method to find the smallest regular hexagon around a set of points (x, y).
And by smallest I mean smallest area.
My current idea was to find the smallest circle enclosing the points, and then create a hexagon from there and check if all the points are inside, but that is starting to sound like a never ending problem.
Requirements
First of all, let's define a hexagon as quadruple [x0, y0, t0, s], where (x0, y0), t0 and s are its center, rotation and side-length respectively.
Next, we need to find whether an arbitrary point is inside the hexagon. The following functions do this:
function getHexAlpha(t, hex)
t = t - hex.t0;
t = t - 2*pi * floor(t / (2*pi));
return pi/2 - abs(rem(t, pi/3) - (pi/6));
end
function getHexRadious( P, hex )
x = P.x - hex.x0;
y = P.y - hex.y0;
t = atan2(y, x);
return hex.s * cos(pi/6) / sin(getHexAlpha(t, hex));
end
function isInHex(P, hex)
r = getHexRadious(P, hex);
d = sqrt((P.x - hex.x0)^2 + (P.y - hex.y0)^2);
return r >= d;
end
Long story short, the getHexRadious function formulates the hexagon in polar form and returns distance from center of hexagon to its boundary at each angle. Read this post for more details about getHexRadious and getHexRadious functions. This is how these work for a set of random points and an arbitrary hexagon:
The Algorithm
I suggest a two-stepped algorithm:
1- Guess an initial hexagon that covers most of points :)
2- Tune s to cover all points
Chapter 1: (2) Following Tarantino in Kill Bill Vol.1
For now, let's assume that our arbitrary hexagon is a good guess. Following functions keep x0, y0, t0 and tune s to cover all points:
function getHexSide( P, hex )
x = P.x - hex.x0;
y = P.y - hex.y0;
r = sqrt(x^2 + y^2);
t = atan2(y, x);
return r / (cos(pi/6) / sin(getHexAlpha(t, hex)));
end
function findMinSide( P[], hex )
for all P[i] in P
S[i] = getHexSide(P, hex);
end
return max(S[]);
end
The getHexSide function is reverse of getHexRadious. It returns the minimum required side-length for a hexagon with x0, y0, t0 to cover point P. This is the outcome for previous test case:
Chapter 2: (1)
As a guess, we can find two points furthest away from each other and fit one of hexagon diameters' on them:
function guessHex( P[] )
D[,] = pairwiseDistance(P[]);
[i, j] = indexOf(max(max(D[,])));
[~, j] = max(D(i, :));
hex.x0 = (P[i].x + P[j].x) / 2;
hex.y0 = (P[i].y + P[j].y) / 2;
hex.s = D[i, j]/2;
hex.t0 = atan2(P.y(i)-hex.y0, P.x(i)-hex.x0);
return hex;
end
Although this method can find a relatively small polygon, but as a greedy approach, it never guarantees to find the optimum solutions.
Chapter 3: A Better Guess
Well, this problem is definitely an optimization problem with its objective being to minimize area of hexagon (or s variable). I don't know if it has an analytical solution, and SO is not the right place to discuss it. But any optimization algorithm can be used to provide a better initial guess. I used GA to solve this with findMinSide as its cost function. In fact GA generates many guesses about x0, y0, and t0 and the best one will be selected. It finds better results but is more time consuming. Still no guarantee to find the optimum!
Optimization of Optimization
When it comes to optimization algorithms, performance is always an issue. Keep in mind that hexagon only needs to enclose the convex-hall of points. If you are dealing with large sets of points, it's better to find the convex-hall and get rid of the rest of the points.
I have in mind the following experiment to run in Matlab and I am asking for an help to implement step (3). Any suggestion would be very appreciated.
(1) Consider the random variables X and Y both uniformly distributed on [0,1]
(2) Draw N realisation from the joint distribution of X and Y assuming that X and Y are independent (meaning that X and Y are uniformly jointly distributed on [0,1]x[0,1]). Each draw will be in [0,1]x[0,1].
(3) Transform each draw in [0,1]x[0,1] in a draw in [0,1] using the Hilbert space filling curve: under the Hilbert curve mapping, the draw in [0,1]x[0,1] should be the image of one (or more because of surjectivity) point(s) in [0,1]. I want pick one of these points. Is there any pre-built package in Matlab doing this?
I found this answer which I don't think does what I want as it explains how to obtain the Hilbert value of the draw (curve length from the start of curve to the picked point)
On wikipedia I found this code in C language (from (x,y) to d) which, again, does not fulfil my question.
EDIT This answer does not address updated version of the question, which explicitly asks about constructing Hilbert curve. Instead, this answer addresses a related question on construction of bijective mapping, and the relation to uniform distribution.
Your problem in not really well defined. If you only need the resulting distribution to be uniform, nothing is stopping you from simply picking f:(X,Y)->X. Result would be uniform regardless of whether X and Y are correlated. From your post I can only presume that what you want, in fact, is for the resulting transformation to be bijective, or as close to it as possible given machine precision limitations.
Worth noting that unless you need the algorithm that is best in preserving locality (which is clearly not required for resulting distribution to be bijective, not to mention uniform), there's no need to bother constructing Hilbert curves that you mention in your question. They have just as much to do with the solution as any other space-filling curve, and are incredibly computationally intensive.
So assuming you're looking for a bijective mapping, your question is equivalent to asking whether the set of points in a [unit] square has the same cardinality as the set of points in a [unit] line segment, and if it is, how to construct that bijection, i.e. 1-to-1 correspondence. The intuition says the square should have a higher cardinality, and Cantor spent 3 years trying to prove that, eventually proving quite the opposite - that these sets are in fact equinumerous. He was so surprised at his discovery that he wrote:
I see it, but I don't believe it!
The most commonly referred to bijection, fulfilling** this criteria, is the following. Represent x and y in their decimal form, i.e. x=0. x1 x2 x3 x4 x5..., and y=0. y1 y2 y3 y4 y5..., and let f:(X,Y)->Z be z=0. x1 y1 x2 y2 x3 y3 x4 y4 x5 y5..., i.e. alternating the decimals of the two numbers. The idea behind the bijection is trivial, though a rigorous proof requires quite a bit of prior knowledge.
** The caveat is that if we take e.g. x = 1/3 = 0.33333... and y = 1/5 = 0.199999... = 0.200000..., we can see there are two sequences corresponding to them: z = 0.313939393939... and z = 0.323030303030.... To overcome this obstacle we have to prove that adding a countable set to an uncountable one does not change the cardinality of the latter.
In reality we have to deal with machine precision and not pure math, which strictly speaking means both sets are actually finite and hence not equinumerous (assuming you store result with the same precision as original numbers). Which means we're simply forced to do some assumptions and loose some information, such as, in this case, the last half of significant digits of x and y. That is, unless we use a different data type that allows to store result with a double precision, compared to that of original variables.
Finally, sample implementation in Matlab:
x = rand();
y = rand();
chars = [num2str(x, '%.17f'); num2str(y, '%.17f')];
z = str2double(['0.' reshape(chars(:,3:end), 1, [])]);
>> cellstr(['x=' num2str(x, '%.17f'); 'y=' num2str(y, '%.17f'); 'z=' num2str(z, '%.17f')])
ans =
'x=0.65549803980353738'
'y=0.10975505072305158'
'z=0.61505947958500362'
Edit This answers the original request for a transformation f(x,y) -> t ~ U[0,1] given x,y ~ U[0,1], and additionally for x and y correlated. The updated question asks specifically for a Hilbert curve, H(x,y) -> t ~ U[0,1] and only for x,y ~ U[0,1] so this answer is no longer relevant.
Consider a random uniform sequence in [0,1] r1, r2, r3, .... You are assigning this sequence to pairs of numbers (x1,y1), (x2,y2), .... What you are asking for is a transformation on pairs (x,y) which yield a uniform random number in [0,1].
Consider the random subsequence r1, r3, ... corresponding to x1, x2, .... If you trust that your number generator is random and uncorrelated in [0,1], then the subsequence x1, x2, ... should also be random and uncorrelated in [0,1]. So the rather simple answer to the first part of your question is a projection onto either the x or y axis. That is, just pick x.
Next consider correlations between x and y. Since you haven't specified the nature of the correlation, let's assume a simple scaling of the axes,
such as x' => [0, 0.5], y' => [0, 3.0], followed by a rotation. The scaling doesn't introduce any correlation since x' and y' are still independent. You can generate it easily enough with a matrix multiply:
M1*p = [x_scale, 0; 0, y_scale] * [x; y]
for matrix M1 and point p. You can introduce a correlation by taking this stretched form and rotating it by theta:
M2*M1*p = [cos(theta), sin(theta); -sin(theta), cos(theta)]*M1*p
Putting it all together with theta = pi/4, or 45 degrees, you can see that larger values of y are correlated with larger values of x:
cos_t = sin_t = cos(pi/4); % at 45 degrees, sin(t) = cos(t) = 1/sqrt(2)
M2 = [cos_t, sin_t; -sin_t, cos_t];
M1 = [0.5, 0.0; 0.0, 3.0];
p = random(2,1000);
p_prime = M2*M1*p;
plot(p_prime(1)', p_prime(2)', '.');
axis('equal');
The resulting plot* shows a band of uniformly distributed numbers at a 45 degree angle:
Further transformations are possible with shear, and if you are clever about it, translation (OpenGL uses 4x4 transformation matrices so that translation can be represented as a linear transform matrix, with an extra dimension added before the transformation steps and removed before they are done).
Given a known affine correlation structure, you can transform back from random points (x',y') to points (x,y) where x and y are independent in [0,1] by solving Mk*...*M1 p = p_prime for p, or equivalently, by setting p = inv(Mk*...*M1) * p_prime, where p=[x;y]. Again, just pick x, which will be uniform in [0,1]. This doesn't work if the transformation matrix is singular, e.g., if you introduce a projection matrix Mj into the mix (though if the projection is the first step you can still recover).
* You may notice that the plot is from python rather than matlab. I don't have matlab or octave sitting in front of me right now, so I hope I got the syntax details right.
You could compute the hilbert curve from f(x,y)=z. Basically it's a hamiltonian path traversal. You can find a good description at Nick's spatial index hilbert curve quadtree blog. Or take a look at monotonic n-ary gray code. I've written an implementation based on Nick's blog in php:http://monstercurves.codeplex.com.
I will focus only on your last point
(3) Transform each draw in [0,1]x[0,1] in a draw in [0,1] using the Hilbert space filling curve: under the Hilbert curve mapping, the draw in [0,1]x[0,1] should be the image of one (or more because of surjectivity) point(s) in [0,1]. I want pick one of these points. Is there any pre-built package in Matlab doing this?
As far as I know, there aren't pre-built packages in Matlab doing this, but the good news is that the code on wikipedia can be called from MATLAB, and it is as simple as putting together the conversion routine with a gateway function in a xy2d.c file:
#include "mex.h"
// source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_curve
// rotate/flip a quadrant appropriately
void rot(int n, int *x, int *y, int rx, int ry) {
if (ry == 0) {
if (rx == 1) {
*x = n-1 - *x;
*y = n-1 - *y;
}
//Swap x and y
int t = *x;
*x = *y;
*y = t;
}
}
// convert (x,y) to d
int xy2d (int n, int x, int y) {
int rx, ry, s, d=0;
for (s=n/2; s>0; s/=2) {
rx = (x & s) > 0;
ry = (y & s) > 0;
d += s * s * ((3 * rx) ^ ry);
rot(s, &x, &y, rx, ry);
}
return d;
}
/* The gateway function */
void mexFunction( int nlhs, mxArray *plhs[],
int nrhs, const mxArray *prhs[])
{
int n; /* input scalar */
int x; /* input scalar */
int y; /* input scalar */
int *d; /* output scalar */
/* check for proper number of arguments */
if(nrhs!=3) {
mexErrMsgIdAndTxt("MyToolbox:arrayProduct:nrhs","Three inputs required.");
}
if(nlhs!=1) {
mexErrMsgIdAndTxt("MyToolbox:arrayProduct:nlhs","One output required.");
}
/* get the value of the scalar inputs */
n = mxGetScalar(prhs[0]);
x = mxGetScalar(prhs[1]);
y = mxGetScalar(prhs[2]);
/* create the output */
plhs[0] = mxCreateDoubleScalar(xy2d(n,x,y));
/* get a pointer to the output scalar */
d = mxGetPr(plhs[0]);
}
and compile it with mex('xy2d.c').
The above implementation
[...] assumes a square divided into n by n cells, for n a power of 2, with integer coordinates, with (0,0) in the lower left corner, (n-1,n-1) in the upper right corner.
In practice, a discretization step is required before applying the mapping. As in every discretization problem, it is crucial to choose the precision wisely. The snippet below puts everything together.
close all; clear; clc;
% number of random samples
NSAMPL = 100;
% unit square divided into n-by-n cells
% has to be a power of 2
n = 2^2;
% quantum
d = 1/n;
N = 0:d:1;
% generate random samples
x = rand(1,NSAMPL);
y = rand(1,NSAMPL);
% discretization
bX = floor(x/d);
bY = floor(y/d);
% 2d to 1d mapping
dd = zeros(1,NSAMPL);
for iid = 1:length(dd)
dd(iid) = xy2d(n, bX(iid), bY(iid));
end
figure;
hold on;
axis equal;
plot(x, y, '.');
plot(repmat([0;1], 1, length(N)), repmat(N, 2, 1), '-r');
plot(repmat(N, 2, 1), repmat([0;1], 1, length(N)), '-r');
figure;
plot(1:NSAMPL, dd);
xlabel('# of sample')
As an extension and partial answer to my thread I wrote a simple algorithm that given a set of points(with xy coordinates) can form a non self-intersecting polygon.
Claim: Given an arbitrary set of points with different coordinates it is always possible to construct a regular or irregular, non self-intersecting polygon.
The algorithm:
Assume there is a set V containing all the vertices
1) Sort all vertices in V by x-coordinate
2) Imagine a straight line (we'll call that "the divider") parallel to the x-axis which starting from the first node expands to infinity and divides/splits the vertices into two sets.
3) Now consider the two sets:
A = The set of all vertices above or on the divider line
B = The set of all remaining vertices
4) Starting at the leftmost vertex of A connect all vertices in A until you get to the rightmost
5) If the rightmost vertex of the sorted set V (the vertex with the biggest x coordinate) is not in A connect that last vertex (rightmost of A) with it.
6) Work backwards and starting from the rightmost vertex of the sorted set V (the vertex with the biggest x coordinate) connect all the vertices that are in B
7)Connect the first (leftmost vertex of B) vertex of B with the leftmost vertex of A
I think that the algorithm is correct and can't find a test that it would fail but maybe I'm missing something.
I would appreciate it if you could have a look and give me an example that wouldn't work if there is any(which I'm sure there must be).
Here is a counterexample. When step 5 does not draw a line, it is possible to self intersect.
I'm not sure I understand correctly what you're trying to do. In the other thread, and in the corresponding thread at math.SE (which brought me here), you said you had a polygon and were trying to find its center of gravity. Here you say you have a set of points and you want to construct a non-intersecting polygon from it. Those are two quite different things. As I mentioned at math.SE, if the polygons are not known to be convex, a set of points doesn't uniquely define a polygon -- so the algorithm you propose here may construct some arbitrary non-self-intersecting polygon (I haven't checked whether it successfully does that) but that may or may not bear any relation to the polygon you were originally interested in. Or did I misunderstand your question at math.SE and you actually only have some points and want to construct just any non-self-intersecting polygon from them and don't care that there may be several inequivalent solutions for this?
I think I have a simpler algorithm that creates such a polygon. May be harder to implement in software but is much easier to describe in words.
Pick any point in the set as your start. Create a line at 0 angle starting from it.
start rotating the line around the point. The moment it meets any other point, draw an edge from the starting point to the newly found point.
continue rotating around the starting point, connecting any newly-found point with the last found.
at finish of the rotation, close the shape by meeting the start point.
In case of multiple finds on one direction, connect them picking one direction (say, starting with inner-most ending with outer-most)
The shape will be usually somewhat star-like, but fulfilling the requirements.
Computational execution would be like:
translate all points to coordinate set with origin[0,0] in one of the points.
convert all points to polar coordinate set
sort by: angle ascending, radius ascending.
connect all points in the sort order.
connect last to the first ([0,0]) point.
I would prove it slightly differently by setting the "divider line" as a connection between left-most and right-most points, rather than parallel to x axis. It could happen that there are no points below or above the parallel-to-x line and that could cause trouble to your proof.
Also, connection (5) could lead to some self-intersections with the connections generated in point (6)
There is also a special case when all points are colinear and your polygon is degraded to a line.
We assume that the set V of vertices is finite ;)
Other than that - I believe your claim is true.
I had the same problem in javascript and OpenLayers library. So this is my solution for detecting validity of a polygon in 'vectors' layer as a OpenLayers.Layer.Vector:
var ps = vectors.features[0].geometry.getVertices(), i, j, inx, x1, x2, x3, x4, y1, y2, y3, y4, x43, x21, y21, y43, y31, maxx12, maxx34, minx12, minx34;
ps.push(ps[0]);
for(i = 0; i < ps.length -1 ; i++ ) {
x1 = ps[i].x; x2 = ps[i+1].x;
y1 = ps[i].y; y2 = ps[i+1].y;
for(j = i + 2; j < ps.length -1 ; j++ ) {
x3 = ps[j].x; x4 = ps[j+1].x;
y3 = ps[j].y; y4 = ps[j+1].y;
x43 = x4 - x3; x21 = x2 - x1; y21 = y2 - y1; y43 = y4 - y3; y31 = y3 - y1;
inx = ( x43*y21*x1 - x21*y43*x3 + y31*x21*x43 )/( x43*y21 - x21*y43 );
if( x1 < x2 ){
minx12 = x1; maxx12 = x2;
} else {
minx12 = x2; maxx12 = x1;
}
if( x3 < x4 ){
minx34 = x3; maxx34 = x4;
} else {
minx34 = x4; maxx34 = x3;
}
if (minx12 < inx && inx < maxx12 && minx34 < inx && inx < maxx34 ){
console.log('intersected!'+' ,x1: '+x1+' ,x2: '+x2+' ,inx: '+inx+' ,i: '+i+' ,j: '+j);
return;
}
}
}
hope you enjoy it!!
From the man page for XFillPolygon:
If shape is Complex, the path may self-intersect. Note that contiguous coincident points in the path are not treated as self-intersection.
If shape is Convex, for every pair of points inside the polygon, the line segment connecting them does not intersect the path. If known by the client, specifying Convex can improve performance. If you specify Convex for a path that is not convex, the graphics results are undefined.
If shape is Nonconvex, the path does not self-intersect, but the shape is not wholly convex. If known by the client, specifying Nonconvex instead of Complex may improve performance. If you specify Nonconvex for a self-intersecting path, the graphics results are undefined.
I am having performance problems with fill XFillPolygon and, as the man page suggests, the first step I want to take is to specify the correct shape of the polygon. I am currently using Complex to be on the safe side.
Is there an efficient algorithm to determine if a polygon (defined by a series of coordinates) is convex, non-convex or complex?
You can make things a lot easier than the Gift-Wrapping Algorithm... that's a good answer when you have a set of points w/o any particular boundary and need to find the convex hull.
In contrast, consider the case where the polygon is not self-intersecting, and it consists of a set of points in a list where the consecutive points form the boundary. In this case it is much easier to figure out whether a polygon is convex or not (and you don't have to calculate any angles, either):
For each consecutive pair of edges of the polygon (each triplet of points), compute the z-component of the cross product of the vectors defined by the edges pointing towards the points in increasing order. Take the cross product of these vectors:
given p[k], p[k+1], p[k+2] each with coordinates x, y:
dx1 = x[k+1]-x[k]
dy1 = y[k+1]-y[k]
dx2 = x[k+2]-x[k+1]
dy2 = y[k+2]-y[k+1]
zcrossproduct = dx1*dy2 - dy1*dx2
The polygon is convex if the z-components of the cross products are either all positive or all negative. Otherwise the polygon is nonconvex.
If there are N points, make sure you calculate N cross products, e.g. be sure to use the triplets (p[N-2],p[N-1],p[0]) and (p[N-1],p[0],p[1]).
If the polygon is self-intersecting, then it fails the technical definition of convexity even if its directed angles are all in the same direction, in which case the above approach would not produce the correct result.
This question is now the first item in either Bing or Google when you search for "determine convex polygon." However, none of the answers are good enough.
The (now deleted) answer by #EugeneYokota works by checking whether an unordered set of points can be made into a convex polygon, but that's not what the OP asked for. He asked for a method to check whether a given polygon is convex or not. (A "polygon" in computer science is usually defined [as in the XFillPolygon documentation] as an ordered array of 2D points, with consecutive points joined with a side as well as the last point to the first.) Also, the gift wrapping algorithm in this case would have the time-complexity of O(n^2) for n points - which is much larger than actually needed to solve this problem, while the question asks for an efficient algorithm.
#JasonS's answer, along with the other answers that follow his idea, accepts star polygons such as a pentagram or the one in #zenna's comment, but star polygons are not considered to be convex. As
#plasmacel notes in a comment, this is a good approach to use if you have prior knowledge that the polygon is not self-intersecting, but it can fail if you do not have that knowledge.
#Sekhat's answer is correct but it also has the time-complexity of O(n^2) and thus is inefficient.
#LorenPechtel's added answer after her edit is the best one here but it is vague.
A correct algorithm with optimal complexity
The algorithm I present here has the time-complexity of O(n), correctly tests whether a polygon is convex or not, and passes all the tests I have thrown at it. The idea is to traverse the sides of the polygon, noting the direction of each side and the signed change of direction between consecutive sides. "Signed" here means left-ward is positive and right-ward is negative (or the reverse) and straight-ahead is zero. Those angles are normalized to be between minus-pi (exclusive) and pi (inclusive). Summing all these direction-change angles (a.k.a the deflection angles) together will result in plus-or-minus one turn (i.e. 360 degrees) for a convex polygon, while a star-like polygon (or a self-intersecting loop) will have a different sum ( n * 360 degrees, for n turns overall, for polygons where all the deflection angles are of the same sign). So we must check that the sum of the direction-change angles is plus-or-minus one turn. We also check that the direction-change angles are all positive or all negative and not reverses (pi radians), all points are actual 2D points, and that no consecutive vertices are identical. (That last point is debatable--you may want to allow repeated vertices but I prefer to prohibit them.) The combination of those checks catches all convex and non-convex polygons.
Here is code for Python 3 that implements the algorithm and includes some minor efficiencies. The code looks longer than it really is due to the the comment lines and the bookkeeping involved in avoiding repeated point accesses.
TWO_PI = 2 * pi
def is_convex_polygon(polygon):
"""Return True if the polynomial defined by the sequence of 2D
points is 'strictly convex': points are valid, side lengths non-
zero, interior angles are strictly between zero and a straight
angle, and the polygon does not intersect itself.
NOTES: 1. Algorithm: the signed changes of the direction angles
from one side to the next side must be all positive or
all negative, and their sum must equal plus-or-minus
one full turn (2 pi radians). Also check for too few,
invalid, or repeated points.
2. No check is explicitly done for zero internal angles
(180 degree direction-change angle) as this is covered
in other ways, including the `n < 3` check.
"""
try: # needed for any bad points or direction changes
# Check for too few points
if len(polygon) < 3:
return False
# Get starting information
old_x, old_y = polygon[-2]
new_x, new_y = polygon[-1]
new_direction = atan2(new_y - old_y, new_x - old_x)
angle_sum = 0.0
# Check each point (the side ending there, its angle) and accum. angles
for ndx, newpoint in enumerate(polygon):
# Update point coordinates and side directions, check side length
old_x, old_y, old_direction = new_x, new_y, new_direction
new_x, new_y = newpoint
new_direction = atan2(new_y - old_y, new_x - old_x)
if old_x == new_x and old_y == new_y:
return False # repeated consecutive points
# Calculate & check the normalized direction-change angle
angle = new_direction - old_direction
if angle <= -pi:
angle += TWO_PI # make it in half-open interval (-Pi, Pi]
elif angle > pi:
angle -= TWO_PI
if ndx == 0: # if first time through loop, initialize orientation
if angle == 0.0:
return False
orientation = 1.0 if angle > 0.0 else -1.0
else: # if other time through loop, check orientation is stable
if orientation * angle <= 0.0: # not both pos. or both neg.
return False
# Accumulate the direction-change angle
angle_sum += angle
# Check that the total number of full turns is plus-or-minus 1
return abs(round(angle_sum / TWO_PI)) == 1
except (ArithmeticError, TypeError, ValueError):
return False # any exception means not a proper convex polygon
The following Java function/method is an implementation of the algorithm described in this answer.
public boolean isConvex()
{
if (_vertices.size() < 4)
return true;
boolean sign = false;
int n = _vertices.size();
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
double dx1 = _vertices.get((i + 2) % n).X - _vertices.get((i + 1) % n).X;
double dy1 = _vertices.get((i + 2) % n).Y - _vertices.get((i + 1) % n).Y;
double dx2 = _vertices.get(i).X - _vertices.get((i + 1) % n).X;
double dy2 = _vertices.get(i).Y - _vertices.get((i + 1) % n).Y;
double zcrossproduct = dx1 * dy2 - dy1 * dx2;
if (i == 0)
sign = zcrossproduct > 0;
else if (sign != (zcrossproduct > 0))
return false;
}
return true;
}
The algorithm is guaranteed to work as long as the vertices are ordered (either clockwise or counter-clockwise), and you don't have self-intersecting edges (i.e. it only works for simple polygons).
Here's a test to check if a polygon is convex.
Consider each set of three points along the polygon--a vertex, the vertex before, the vertex after. If every angle is 180 degrees or less you have a convex polygon. When you figure out each angle, also keep a running total of (180 - angle). For a convex polygon, this will total 360.
This test runs in O(n) time.
Note, also, that in most cases this calculation is something you can do once and save — most of the time you have a set of polygons to work with that don't go changing all the time.
To test if a polygon is convex, every point of the polygon should be level with or behind each line.
Here's an example picture:
The answer by #RoryDaulton
seems the best to me, but what if one of the angles is exactly 0?
Some may want such an edge case to return True, in which case, change "<=" to "<" in the line :
if orientation * angle < 0.0: # not both pos. or both neg.
Here are my test cases which highlight the issue :
# A square
assert is_convex_polygon( ((0,0), (1,0), (1,1), (0,1)) )
# This LOOKS like a square, but it has an extra point on one of the edges.
assert is_convex_polygon( ((0,0), (0.5,0), (1,0), (1,1), (0,1)) )
The 2nd assert fails in the original answer. Should it?
For my use case, I would prefer it didn't.
This method would work on simple polygons (no self intersecting edges) assuming that the vertices are ordered (either clockwise or counter)
For an array of vertices:
vertices = [(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,1)]
The following python implementation checks whether the z component of all the cross products have the same sign
def zCrossProduct(a,b,c):
return (a[0]-b[0])*(b[1]-c[1])-(a[1]-b[1])*(b[0]-c[0])
def isConvex(vertices):
if len(vertices)<4:
return True
signs= [zCrossProduct(a,b,c)>0 for a,b,c in zip(vertices[2:],vertices[1:],vertices)]
return all(signs) or not any(signs)
I implemented both algorithms: the one posted by #UriGoren (with a small improvement - only integer math) and the one from #RoryDaulton, in Java. I had some problems because my polygon is closed, so both algorithms were considering the second as concave, when it was convex. So i changed it to prevent such situation. My methods also uses a base index (which can be or not 0).
These are my test vertices:
// concave
int []x = {0,100,200,200,100,0,0};
int []y = {50,0,50,200,50,200,50};
// convex
int []x = {0,100,200,100,0,0};
int []y = {50,0,50,200,200,50};
And now the algorithms:
private boolean isConvex1(int[] x, int[] y, int base, int n) // Rory Daulton
{
final double TWO_PI = 2 * Math.PI;
// points is 'strictly convex': points are valid, side lengths non-zero, interior angles are strictly between zero and a straight
// angle, and the polygon does not intersect itself.
// NOTES: 1. Algorithm: the signed changes of the direction angles from one side to the next side must be all positive or
// all negative, and their sum must equal plus-or-minus one full turn (2 pi radians). Also check for too few,
// invalid, or repeated points.
// 2. No check is explicitly done for zero internal angles(180 degree direction-change angle) as this is covered
// in other ways, including the `n < 3` check.
// needed for any bad points or direction changes
// Check for too few points
if (n <= 3) return true;
if (x[base] == x[n-1] && y[base] == y[n-1]) // if its a closed polygon, ignore last vertex
n--;
// Get starting information
int old_x = x[n-2], old_y = y[n-2];
int new_x = x[n-1], new_y = y[n-1];
double new_direction = Math.atan2(new_y - old_y, new_x - old_x), old_direction;
double angle_sum = 0.0, orientation=0;
// Check each point (the side ending there, its angle) and accum. angles for ndx, newpoint in enumerate(polygon):
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
// Update point coordinates and side directions, check side length
old_x = new_x; old_y = new_y; old_direction = new_direction;
int p = base++;
new_x = x[p]; new_y = y[p];
new_direction = Math.atan2(new_y - old_y, new_x - old_x);
if (old_x == new_x && old_y == new_y)
return false; // repeated consecutive points
// Calculate & check the normalized direction-change angle
double angle = new_direction - old_direction;
if (angle <= -Math.PI)
angle += TWO_PI; // make it in half-open interval (-Pi, Pi]
else if (angle > Math.PI)
angle -= TWO_PI;
if (i == 0) // if first time through loop, initialize orientation
{
if (angle == 0.0) return false;
orientation = angle > 0 ? 1 : -1;
}
else // if other time through loop, check orientation is stable
if (orientation * angle <= 0) // not both pos. or both neg.
return false;
// Accumulate the direction-change angle
angle_sum += angle;
// Check that the total number of full turns is plus-or-minus 1
}
return Math.abs(Math.round(angle_sum / TWO_PI)) == 1;
}
And now from Uri Goren
private boolean isConvex2(int[] x, int[] y, int base, int n)
{
if (n < 4)
return true;
boolean sign = false;
if (x[base] == x[n-1] && y[base] == y[n-1]) // if its a closed polygon, ignore last vertex
n--;
for(int p=0; p < n; p++)
{
int i = base++;
int i1 = i+1; if (i1 >= n) i1 = base + i1-n;
int i2 = i+2; if (i2 >= n) i2 = base + i2-n;
int dx1 = x[i1] - x[i];
int dy1 = y[i1] - y[i];
int dx2 = x[i2] - x[i1];
int dy2 = y[i2] - y[i1];
int crossproduct = dx1*dy2 - dy1*dx2;
if (i == base)
sign = crossproduct > 0;
else
if (sign != (crossproduct > 0))
return false;
}
return true;
}
For a non complex (intersecting) polygon to be convex, vector frames obtained from any two connected linearly independent lines a,b must be point-convex otherwise the polygon is concave.
For example the lines a,b are convex to the point p and concave to it below for each case i.e. above: p exists inside a,b and below: p exists outside a,b
Similarly for each polygon below, if each line pair making up a sharp edge is point-convex to the centroid c then the polygon is convex otherwise it’s concave.
blunt edges (wronged green) are to be ignored
N.B
This approach would require you compute the centroid of your polygon beforehand since it doesn’t employ angles but vector algebra/transformations
Adapted Uri's code into matlab. Hope this may help.
Be aware that Uri's algorithm only works for simple polygons! So, be sure to test if the polygon is simple first!
% M [ x1 x2 x3 ...
% y1 y2 y3 ...]
% test if a polygon is convex
function ret = isConvex(M)
N = size(M,2);
if (N<4)
ret = 1;
return;
end
x0 = M(1, 1:end);
x1 = [x0(2:end), x0(1)];
x2 = [x0(3:end), x0(1:2)];
y0 = M(2, 1:end);
y1 = [y0(2:end), y0(1)];
y2 = [y0(3:end), y0(1:2)];
dx1 = x2 - x1;
dy1 = y2 - y1;
dx2 = x0 - x1;
dy2 = y0 - y1;
zcrossproduct = dx1 .* dy2 - dy1 .* dx2;
% equality allows two consecutive edges to be parallel
t1 = sum(zcrossproduct >= 0);
t2 = sum(zcrossproduct <= 0);
ret = t1 == N || t2 == N;
end
I'm looking for an algorithm to detect if two rectangles intersect (one at an arbitrary angle, the other with only vertical/horizontal lines).
Testing if a corner of one is in the other ALMOST works. It fails if the rectangles form a cross-like shape.
It seems like a good idea to avoid using slopes of the lines, which would require special cases for vertical lines.
The standard method would be to do the separating axis test (do a google search on that).
In short:
Two objects don't intersect if you can find a line that separates the two objects. e.g. the objects / all points of an object are on different sides of the line.
The fun thing is, that it's sufficient to just check all edges of the two rectangles. If the rectangles don't overlap one of the edges will be the separating axis.
In 2D you can do this without using slopes. An edge is simply defined as the difference between two vertices, e.g.
edge = v(n) - v(n-1)
You can get a perpendicular to this by rotating it by 90°. In 2D this is easy as:
rotated.x = -unrotated.y
rotated.y = unrotated.x
So no trigonometry or slopes involved. Normalizing the vector to unit-length is not required either.
If you want to test if a point is on one or another side of the line you can just use the dot-product. the sign will tell you which side you're on:
// rotated: your rotated edge
// v(n-1) any point from the edge.
// testpoint: the point you want to find out which side it's on.
side = sign (rotated.x * (testpoint.x - v(n-1).x) +
rotated.y * (testpoint.y - v(n-1).y);
Now test all points of rectangle A against the edges of rectangle B and vice versa. If you find a separating edge the objects don't intersect (providing all other points in B are on the other side of the edge being tested for - see drawing below). If you find no separating edge either the rectangles are intersecting or one rectangle is contained in the other.
The test works with any convex polygons btw..
Amendment: To identify a separating edge, it is not enough to test all points of one rectangle against each edge of the other. The candidate-edge E (below) would as such be identified as a separating edge, as all points in A are in the same half-plane of E. However, it isn't a separating edge because the vertices Vb1 and Vb2 of B are also in that half-plane. It would only have been a separating edge if that had not been the case
http://www.iassess.com/collision.png
Basically look at the following picture:
If the two boxes collide, the lines A and B will overlap.
Note that this will have to be done on both the X and the Y axis, and both need to overlap for the rectangles to collide.
There is a good article in gamasutra.com which answers the question (the picture is from the article).
I did similar algorithm 5 years ago and I have to find my code snippet to post it here later
Amendment: The Separating Axis Theorem states that two convex shapes do not overlap if a separating axis exists (i.e. one where the projections as shown do not overlap). So "A separating axis exists" => "No overlap". This is not a bi-implication so you cannot conclude the converse.
In Cocoa you could easily detect whether the selectedArea rect intersects your rotated NSView's frame rect.
You don't even need to calculate polygons, normals an such. Just add these methods to your NSView subclass.
For instance, the user selects an area on the NSView's superview, then you call the method DoesThisRectSelectMe passing the selectedArea rect. The API convertRect: will do that job. The same trick works when you click on the NSView to select it. In that case simply override the hitTest method as below. The API convertPoint: will do that job ;-)
- (BOOL)DoesThisRectSelectMe:(NSRect)selectedArea
{
NSRect localArea = [self convertRect:selectedArea fromView:self.superview];
return NSIntersectsRect(localArea, self.bounds);
}
- (NSView *)hitTest:(NSPoint)aPoint
{
NSPoint localPoint = [self convertPoint:aPoint fromView:self.superview];
return NSPointInRect(localPoint, self.bounds) ? self : nil;
}
m_pGladiator's answer is right and I prefer to it.
Separating axis test is simplest and standard method to detect rectangle overlap. A line for which the projection intervals do not overlap we call a separating axis. Nils Pipenbrinck's solution is too general. It use dot product to check whether one shape is totally on the one side of the edge of the other. This solution is actually could induce to n-edge convex polygons. However, it is not optmized for two rectangles.
the critical point of m_pGladiator's answer is that we should check two rectangles' projection on both axises (x and y). If two projections are overlapped, then we could say these two rectangles are overlapped. So the comments above to m_pGladiator's answer are wrong.
for the simple situation, if two rectangles are not rotated,
we present a rectangle with structure:
struct Rect {
x, // the center in x axis
y, // the center in y axis
width,
height
}
we name rectangle A, B with rectA, rectB.
if Math.abs(rectA.x - rectB.x) < (Math.abs(rectA.width + rectB.width) / 2)
&& (Math.abs(rectA.y - rectB.y) < (Math.abs(rectA.height + rectB.height) / 2))
then
// A and B collide
end if
if any one of the two rectangles are rotated,
It may needs some efforts to determine the projection of them on x and y axises. Define struct RotatedRect as following:
struct RotatedRect : Rect {
double angle; // the rotating angle oriented to its center
}
the difference is how the width' is now a little different:
widthA' for rectA: Math.sqrt(rectA.width*rectA.width + rectA.height*rectA.height) * Math.cos(rectA.angle)
widthB' for rectB: Math.sqrt(rectB.width*rectB.width + rectB.height*rectB.height) * Math.cos(rectB.angle)
if Math.abs(rectA.x - rectB.x) < (Math.abs(widthA' + widthB') / 2)
&& (Math.abs(rectA.y - rectB.y) < (Math.abs(heightA' + heightB') / 2))
then
// A and B collide
end if
Could refer to a GDC(Game Development Conference 2007) PPT www.realtimecollisiondetection.net/pubs/GDC07_Ericson_Physics_Tutorial_SAT.ppt
The accepted answer about the separating axis test was very illuminating but I still felt it was not trivial to apply. I will share the pseudo-code I thought, "optimizing" first with the bounding circle test (see this other answer), in case it might help other people. I considered two rectangles A and B of the same size (but it is straightforward to consider the general situation).
1 Bounding circle test:
function isRectangleACollidingWithRectangleB:
if d > 2 * R:
return False
...
Computationally is much faster than the separating axis test. You only need to consider the separating axis test in the situation that both circles collide.
2 Separating axis test
The main idea is:
Consider one rectangle. Cycle along its vertices V(i).
Calculate the vector Si+1: V(i+1) - V(i).
Calculate the vector Ni using Si+1: Ni = (-Si+1.y, Si+1.x). This vector is the blue from the image. The sign of the dot product between the vectors from V(i) to the other vertices and Ni will define the separating axis (magenta dashed line).
Calculate the vector Si-1: V(i-1) - V(i). The sign of the dot product between Si-1 and Ni will define the location of the first rectangle with respect to the separating axis. In the example of the picture, they go in different directions, so the sign will be negative.
Cycle for all vertices j of the second square and calculate the vector Sij = V(j) - V(i).
If for any vertex V(j), the sign of the dot product of the vector Sij with Ni is the same as with the dot product of the vector Si-1 with Ni, this means both vertices V(i) and V(j) are on the same side of the magenta dashed line and, thus, vertex V(i) does not have a separating axis. So we can just skip vertex V(i) and repeat for the next vertex V(i+1). But first we update Si-1 = - Si+1. When we reach the last vertex (i = 4), if we have not found a separating axis, we repeat for the other rectangle. And if we still do not find a separating axis, this implies there is no separating axis and both rectangles collide.
If for a given vertex V(i) and all vertices V(j), the sign of the dot product of the vector Sij with Ni is different than with the vector Si-1 with Ni (as occurs in the image), this means we have found the separating axis and the rectangles do not collide.
In pseudo-code:
function isRectangleACollidingWithRectangleB:
...
#Consider first rectangle A:
Si-1 = Vertex_A[4] - Vertex_A[1]
for i in Vertex_A:
Si+1 = Vertex_A[i+1] - Vertex_A[i]
Ni = [- Si+1.y, Si+1.x ]
sgn_i = sign( dot_product(Si-1, Ni) ) #sgn_i is the sign of rectangle A with respect the separating axis
for j in Vertex_B:
sij = Vertex_B[j] - Vertex_A[i]
sgn_j = sign( dot_product(sij, Ni) ) #sgnj is the sign of vertex j of square B with respect the separating axis
if sgn_i * sgn_j > 0: #i.e., we have the same sign
break #Vertex i does not define separating axis
else:
if j == 4: #we have reached the last vertex so vertex i defines the separating axis
return False
Si-1 = - Si+1
#Repeat for rectangle B
...
#If we do not find any separating axis
return True
You can find the code in Python here.
Note:
In this other answer they also suggest for optimization to try before the separating axis test whether the vertices of one rectangle are inside the other as a sufficient condition for colliding. However, in my trials I found this intermediate step to actually be less efficient.
Check to see if any of the lines from one rectangle intersect any of the lines from the other. Naive line segment intersection is easy to code up.
If you need more speed, there are advanced algorithms for line segment intersection (sweep-line). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment_intersection
One solution is to use something called a No Fit Polygon. This polygon is calculated from the two polygons (conceptually by sliding one around the other) and it defines the area for which the polygons overlap given their relative offset. Once you have this NFP then you simply have to do an inclusion test with a point given by the relative offset of the two polygons. This inclusion test is quick and easy but you do have to create the NFP first.
Have a search for No Fit Polygon on the web and see if you can find an algorithm for convex polygons (it gets MUCH more complex if you have concave polygons). If you can't find anything then email me at howard dot J dot may gmail dot com
Here is what I think will take care of all possible cases.
Do the following tests.
Check any of the vertices of rectangle 1 reside inside rectangle 2 and vice versa. Anytime you find a vertex that resides inside the other rectangle you can conclude that they intersect and stop the search. THis will take care of one rectangle residing completely inside the other.
If the above test is inconclusive find the intersecting points of each line of 1 rectangle with each line of the other rectangle. Once a point of intersection is found check if it resides between inside the imaginary rectangle created by the corresponding 4 points. When ever such a point is found conclude that they intersect and stop the search.
If the above 2 tests return false then these 2 rectangles do not overlap.
If you're using Java, all implementations of the Shape interface have an intersects method that take a rectangle.
Well, the brute force method is to walk the edges of the horizontal rectangle and check each point along the edge to see if it falls on or in the other rectangle.
The mathematical answer is to form equations describing each edge of both rectangles. Now you can simply find if any of the four lines from rectangle A intersect any of the lines of rectangle B, which should be a simple (fast) linear equation solver.
-Adam
You could find the intersection of each side of the angled rectangle with each side of the axis-aligned one. Do this by finding the equation of the infinite line on which each side lies (i.e. v1 + t(v2-v1) and v'1 + t'(v'2-v'1) basically), finding the point at which the lines meet by solving for t when those two equations are equal (if they're parallel, you can test for that) and then testing whether that point lies on the line segment between the two vertices, i.e. is it true that 0 <= t <= 1 and 0 <= t' <= 1.
However, this doesn't cover the case when one rectangle completely covers the other. That you can cover by testing whether all four points of either rectangle lie inside the other rectangle.
This is what I would do, for the 3D version of this problem:
Model the 2 rectangles as planes described by equation P1 and P2, then write P1=P2 and derive from that the line of intersection equation, which won't exist if the planes are parallel (no intersection), or are in the same plane, in which case you get 0=0. In that case you will need to employ a 2D rectangle intersection algorithm.
Then I would see if that line, which is in the plane of both rectangles, passes through both rectangles. If it does, then you have an intersection of 2 rectangles, otherwise you don't (or shouldn't, I might have missed a corner case in my head).
To find if a line passes through a rectangle in the same plane, I would find the 2 points of intersection of the line and the sides of the rectangle (modelling them using line equations), and then make sure the points of intersections are with in range.
That is the mathematical descriptions, unfortunately I have no code to do the above.
Another way to do the test which is slightly faster than using the separating axis test, is to use the winding numbers algorithm (on quadrants only - not angle-summation which is horrifically slow) on each vertex of either rectangle (arbitrarily chosen). If any of the vertices have a non-zero winding number, the two rectangles overlap.
This algorithm is somewhat more long-winded than the separating axis test, but is faster because it only require a half-plane test if edges are crossing two quadrants (as opposed to up to 32 tests using the separating axis method)
The algorithm has the further advantage that it can be used to test overlap of any polygon (convex or concave). As far as I know, the algorithm only works in 2D space.
Either I am missing something else why make this so complicated?
if (x1,y1) and (X1,Y1) are corners of the rectangles, then to find intersection do:
xIntersect = false;
yIntersect = false;
if (!(Math.min(x1, x2, x3, x4) > Math.max(X1, X2, X3, X4) || Math.max(x1, x2, x3, x4) < Math.min(X1, X2, X3, X4))) xIntersect = true;
if (!(Math.min(y1, y2, y3, y4) > Math.max(Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4) || Math.max(y1, y2, y3, y4) < Math.min(Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4))) yIntersect = true;
if (xIntersect && yIntersect) {alert("Intersect");}
I implemented it like this:
bool rectCollision(const CGRect &boundsA, const Matrix3x3 &mB, const CGRect &boundsB)
{
float Axmin = boundsA.origin.x;
float Axmax = Axmin + boundsA.size.width;
float Aymin = boundsA.origin.y;
float Aymax = Aymin + boundsA.size.height;
float Bxmin = boundsB.origin.x;
float Bxmax = Bxmin + boundsB.size.width;
float Bymin = boundsB.origin.y;
float Bymax = Bymin + boundsB.size.height;
// find location of B corners in A space
float B0x = mB(0,0) * Bxmin + mB(0,1) * Bymin + mB(0,2);
float B0y = mB(1,0) * Bxmin + mB(1,1) * Bymin + mB(1,2);
float B1x = mB(0,0) * Bxmax + mB(0,1) * Bymin + mB(0,2);
float B1y = mB(1,0) * Bxmax + mB(1,1) * Bymin + mB(1,2);
float B2x = mB(0,0) * Bxmin + mB(0,1) * Bymax + mB(0,2);
float B2y = mB(1,0) * Bxmin + mB(1,1) * Bymax + mB(1,2);
float B3x = mB(0,0) * Bxmax + mB(0,1) * Bymax + mB(0,2);
float B3y = mB(1,0) * Bxmax + mB(1,1) * Bymax + mB(1,2);
if(B0x<Axmin && B1x<Axmin && B2x<Axmin && B3x<Axmin)
return false;
if(B0x>Axmax && B1x>Axmax && B2x>Axmax && B3x>Axmax)
return false;
if(B0y<Aymin && B1y<Aymin && B2y<Aymin && B3y<Aymin)
return false;
if(B0y>Aymax && B1y>Aymax && B2y>Aymax && B3y>Aymax)
return false;
float det = mB(0,0)*mB(1,1) - mB(0,1)*mB(1,0);
float dx = mB(1,2)*mB(0,1) - mB(0,2)*mB(1,1);
float dy = mB(0,2)*mB(1,0) - mB(1,2)*mB(0,0);
// find location of A corners in B space
float A0x = (mB(1,1) * Axmin - mB(0,1) * Aymin + dx)/det;
float A0y = (-mB(1,0) * Axmin + mB(0,0) * Aymin + dy)/det;
float A1x = (mB(1,1) * Axmax - mB(0,1) * Aymin + dx)/det;
float A1y = (-mB(1,0) * Axmax + mB(0,0) * Aymin + dy)/det;
float A2x = (mB(1,1) * Axmin - mB(0,1) * Aymax + dx)/det;
float A2y = (-mB(1,0) * Axmin + mB(0,0) * Aymax + dy)/det;
float A3x = (mB(1,1) * Axmax - mB(0,1) * Aymax + dx)/det;
float A3y = (-mB(1,0) * Axmax + mB(0,0) * Aymax + dy)/det;
if(A0x<Bxmin && A1x<Bxmin && A2x<Bxmin && A3x<Bxmin)
return false;
if(A0x>Bxmax && A1x>Bxmax && A2x>Bxmax && A3x>Bxmax)
return false;
if(A0y<Bymin && A1y<Bymin && A2y<Bymin && A3y<Bymin)
return false;
if(A0y>Bymax && A1y>Bymax && A2y>Bymax && A3y>Bymax)
return false;
return true;
}
The matrix mB is any affine transform matrix that converts points in the B space to points in the A space. This includes simple rotation and translation, rotation plus scaling, and full affine warps, but not perspective warps.
It may not be as optimal as possible. Speed was not a huge concern. However it seems to work ok for me.
Here is a matlab implementation of the accepted answer:
function olap_flag = ol(A,B,sub)
%A and B should be 4 x 2 matrices containing the xy coordinates of the corners in clockwise order
if nargin == 2
olap_flag = ol(A,B,1) && ol(B,A,1);
return;
end
urdl = diff(A([1:4 1],:));
s = sum(urdl .* A, 2);
sdiff = B * urdl' - repmat(s,[1 4]);
olap_flag = ~any(max(sdiff)<0);
This is the conventional method, go line by line and check whether the lines are intersecting. This is the code in MATLAB.
C1 = [0, 0]; % Centre of rectangle 1 (x,y)
C2 = [1, 1]; % Centre of rectangle 2 (x,y)
W1 = 5; W2 = 3; % Widths of rectangles 1 and 2
H1 = 2; H2 = 3; % Heights of rectangles 1 and 2
% Define the corner points of the rectangles using the above
R1 = [C1(1) + [W1; W1; -W1; -W1]/2, C1(2) + [H1; -H1; -H1; H1]/2];
R2 = [C2(1) + [W2; W2; -W2; -W2]/2, C2(2) + [H2; -H2; -H2; H2]/2];
R1 = [R1 ; R1(1,:)] ;
R2 = [R2 ; R2(1,:)] ;
plot(R1(:,1),R1(:,2),'r')
hold on
plot(R2(:,1),R2(:,2),'b')
%% lines of Rectangles
L1 = [R1(1:end-1,:) R1(2:end,:)] ;
L2 = [R2(1:end-1,:) R2(2:end,:)] ;
%% GEt intersection points
P = zeros(2,[]) ;
count = 0 ;
for i = 1:4
line1 = reshape(L1(i,:),2,2) ;
for j = 1:4
line2 = reshape(L2(j,:),2,2) ;
point = InterX(line1,line2) ;
if ~isempty(point)
count = count+1 ;
P(:,count) = point ;
end
end
end
%%
if ~isempty(P)
fprintf('Given rectangles intersect at %d points:\n',size(P,2))
plot(P(1,:),P(2,:),'*k')
end
the function InterX can be downloaded from: https://in.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/22441-curve-intersections?focused=5165138&tab=function
I have a simplier method of my own, if we have 2 rectangles:
R1 = (min_x1, max_x1, min_y1, max_y1)
R2 = (min_x2, max_x2, min_y2, max_y2)
They overlap if and only if:
Overlap = (max_x1 > min_x2) and (max_x2 > min_x1) and (max_y1 > min_y2) and (max_y2 > min_y1)
You can do it for 3D boxes too, actually it works for any number of dimensions.
Enough has been said in other answers, so I'll just add pseudocode one-liner:
!(a.left > b.right || b.left > a.right || a.top > b.bottom || b.top > a.bottom);
Check if the center of mass of all the vertices of both rectangles lies within one of the rectangles.