Related
Assuming that the polygon does not self-intersect, what would be the most efficient way to do this? The polygon has N vertices.
I know that it can be calculated with the coordinates but is there another general way?
The signed area, A(T), of the triangle T = ((x1, y1), (x2, y2), (x3, y3)) is defined to be 1/2 times the determinant of the following matrix:
|x1 y1 1|
|x2 y2 1|
|x3 y3 1|
The determinant is -y1*x2 + x1*y2 + y1*x3 - y2*x3 - x1*y3 + x2*y3.
Given a polygon (convex or concave) defined by the vertices p[0], p[1], ..., p[N - 1], you can compute the area of the polygon as follows.
area = 0
for i in [0, N - 2]:
area += A((0, 0), p[i], p[i + 1])
area += A((0, 0), p[N - 1], p[0])
area = abs(area)
Using the expression for the determinant above, you can compute A((0, 0), p, q) efficiently as 0.5 * (-p.y*q.x + p.x*q.y). A further improvement is to do the multiplication by 0.5 only once:
area = 0
for i in [0, N - 2]:
area += -p[i].y * p[i+1].x + p[i].x * p[i+1].y
area += -p[N-1].y * p[0].x + p[N-1].x * p[0].y
area = 0.5 * abs(area)
This is a linear time algorithm, and it is trivial to parallelize. Note also that it is an exact algorithm when the coordinates of your vertices are all integer-valued.
Link to Wikipedia article on this algorithm
The best way to approach this problem that I can think of is to consider the polygon as several triangles, find their areas separately, and sum them for the total area. All polygons, regular, or irregular, are essentially just a bunch of triangle (cut a quadrilateral diagonally to make two triangles, a pentagon in two cuts from one corner to the two most opposite ones, and the pattern continues on). This is quite simple to put to code.
A general algorithm for this can be coded as follows:
function polygonArea(Xcoords, Ycoords) {
numPoints = len(Xcoords)
area = 0; // Accumulates area in the loop
j = numPoints-1; // The last vertex is the 'previous' one to the first
for (i=0; i<numPoints; i++)
{ area = area + (Xcoords[j]+Xcoords[i]) * (Ycoords[j]-Ycoords[i]);
j = i; //j is previous vertex to i
}
return area/2;
}
Xcoords and Ycoords are arrays, where Xcoords stores the X coordinates, and Ycoords the Y coordinates.
The algorithm iteratively constructs the triangles from previous vertices.
I modified this from the algorithm provided Here by Math Open Ref
It should be relatively painless to adapt this to whatever form you are storing your coordinates in, and whatever language you are using for your project.
The "Tear one ear at a time" algorithm works, provided the triangle you remove does not contain "holes" (other vertices of the polygon).
That is, you need to choose the green triangle below, not the red one:
However, it is always possible to do so (Can't prove it mathematically right now, but you'l have to trust me). You just need to walk the polygon's vertices and perform some inclusion tests until you find a suitable triple.
Source: I once implemented a triangulation of arbitrary, non-intersecting polygons based on what I read in Computational Geometry in C by Joseph O'Rourke.
Take 3 consecutive points from the polygon.
Calculate the area of the resulting triangle.
Remove the middle of the 3 points from the polygon.
Do a test to see if the removed point is inside the remaining polygon or not. If it's inside subtract the triangle area from the total, otherwise add it.
Repeat until the polygon consists of a single triangle, and add that triangle's area to the total.
Edit: to solve the problem given by #NicolasMiari simply make two passes, on the first pass only process the vertices that are inside the remainder polygon, on the second pass process the remainder.
Let's say I have a triangle given by the three integer vertices (x1,y1), (x2,y2) and (x3,y3). What sort of algorithm can I use to return a comprehensive list of ALL (x,y) integer pairs that lie inside the triangle.
The proper name for this problem is triangle rasterization.
It's a well researched problem and there's variety of methods to do it. The two popular methods are:
Scan line by scan line.
For each scan-line you require some basic geometry to recalculate
the start and the end of the line. See Bresenham's Line drawing algorithm.
Test every pixel in the bounding box to see if it is in the
triangle.
This is usually done by using barycentric co-ordinates.
Most people assume method 1) is more efficient as you don't waste time testing pixels that can are outside the triangle, approximately half of all the pixels in the bounding box. However, 2) has a major advantage - it can be run in parallel far more easily and so for hardware is usually the much faster option. 2) is also simpler to code.
The original paper for describing exactly how to use method 2) is written by Juan Pineda in 1988 and is called "A Parallel Algorithm for Polygon Rasterization".
For triangles, it's conceptually very simple (if you learn barycentric co-ordindates). If you convert each pixel into triangle barycentric coordinates, alpha, beta and gamma - then the simple test is that alpha, beta and gamma must be between 0 and 1.
The following algorithm should be appropriate:
Sort the triangle vertices by x coordinate in increasing order. Now we have two segments (1-2 and 2-3) on the one side (top or bottom), and one segment from the other one (1-3).
Compute coefficients of equations of lines (which contain the segments):
A * x + B * y + C = 0
A = y2 - y1
B = x1 - x2
C = x2 * y1 - x1 * y2
There (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) are two points of the line.
For each of ranges [x1, x2), (x2, x3], and x2 (special case) iterate over integer points in ranges and do the following for every x:
Find top bound as y_top = (- A1 * x - C1) div B1.
Find bottom bound as y_bottom = (- A2 * y - C2 - 1) div B2 + 1.
Add all points between (x, y_bottom) and (x, y_top) to the result.
This algorithm is for not strictly internal vertices. For strictly internal vertices items 3.1 and 3.2 slightly differ.
I suppose you have a list of pairs you want to test (if this is not what your problem is about, please specify your question clearly). You should store the pairs into quad-tree or kd-tree structure first, in order to have a set of candidates which is small enough. If you have few points, this is probably not worth the hassle (but it won't scale well if you don't do it).
You can also narrow down candidates further by testing against a bounding box for your triangle.
Then, for each candidate pair (x, y), solve in a, b, c the system
a + b + c = 1
a x1 + b x2 + c x3 = x
a y2 + b y2 + c y3 = y
(I let you work this out), and the point is inside the triangle if a b and c are all positive.
I like ray casting, nicely described in this Wikipedia article. Used it in my project for the same purpose. That method scales on other polygons too, including concave. Not sure about the performance, but it is easily coded, so you could try it yourself (I had no performance issues in my project)
Given n squares with edge length l, how can I determine the minimum radius r of the circle so that I can distribute all squares evenly along the perimeter of the circle without them overlapping? (Constraint: the first square will always be positioned at 12 o'clock.)
Followup question: how can I place n identical rectangles with height h and width w?
(source: n3rd.org)
There may be a mathematically clever way to do this, but I wouldn't know.
I think it's complicated a bit by the fact that the geometry is different for every different number of squares; for 4 it's a rhombus, for 5 it's a pentagon and so on.
What I'd do is place those squares on a 1 unit circle (much too small, I know, bear with me) distributed equally on it. That's easy enough, just subtend (divide) your 360 degrees by the number of squares. Then just test all your squares for overlap against their neighbors; if they overlap, increase the radius.
You can make this procedure less stupid than it sounds by using an intelligent algorithm to approach the right size. I'm thinking of something like Newton's algorithm: Given two successive guesses, of which one is too small and one is too big, your next guess needs to be the average of those two.
You can iterate down to any precision you like. Stop whenever the distance between guesses is smaller than some arbitrary small margin of error.
EDIT I have a better solution:
I was thinking about what to tell you if you asked "how will I know if squares overlap?" This gave me an idea on how to calculate the circle size exactly, in one step:
Place your squares on a much-too-small circle. You know how: Calculate the points on the circle where your 360/n angles intersect it, and put the center of the square there. Actually, you don't need to place squares yet, the next steps only require midpoints.
To calculate the minimum distance of a square to its neighbor: Calculate the difference in X and the difference in Y of the midpoints, and take the minimum of those. The X's and Y's are actually just cosines and sines on the circle.
You'll want the minimum of any square against its neighbor (clockwise, say). So you need to work your way around the circle to find the very smallest one.
The minimum (X or Y) distance between the squares needs to become 1.0 . So just take the reciprocal of the minimum distance and multiply the circle's size by that. Presto, your circle is the right size.
EDIT
Without losing generality, I think it's possible to nail my solution down a bit so it's close to coding. Here's a refinement:
Assume the squares have size 1, i.e. each side has a length of 1 unit. In the end, your boxes will surely be larger than 1 pixel but it's just a matter of scaling.
Get rid of the corner cases:
if (n < 2) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
if (n == 2) return 0.5; // 2 squares will fit exactly on a circle of radius 0.5
Start with a circle size r of 0.5, which will surely be too small for any number of squares > 2.
r = 0.5;
dmin = 1.0; // start assuming minimum distance is fine
a = 2 * PI / n;
for (p1 = 0.0; p1 <= PI; p1+=a) { // starting with angle 0, try all points till halfway around
// (yeah, we're starting east, not north. doesn't matter)
p2 = p1 + a; // next point on the circle
dx = abs(r * cos(p2) - r * cos(p1))
dy = abs(r * sin(p2) - r * sin(p1))
dmin = min(dmin, dx, dy)
}
r = r / dmin;
EDIT
I turned this into real Java code and got something quite similar to this to run. Code and results here: http://ideone.com/r9aiu
I created graphical output using GnuPlot. I was able to create simple diagrams of boxes arranged in a circle by cut-and-pasting the point sets from the output into a data file and then running
plot '5.dat' with boxxyerrorbars
The .5's in the file serve to size the boxes... lazy but working solution. The .5 is applied to both sides of the center, so the boxes end up being exactly 1.0 in size.
Alas, my algorithm doesn't work. It makes the radii far too large, thus placing the boxes much further apart than necessary. Even scaling down by a factor of 2 (could have been a mistake to use 0.5 in some places) didn't help.
Sorry, I give up. Maybe my approach can be salvaged, but it doesn't work the way I had though it would. :(
EDIT
I hate giving up. I was about to leave my PC when I thought of a way to salvage my algorithm:
The algorithm was adjusting the smaller of the X or Y distances to be at least 1. It's easy to demonstrate that's just plain silly. When you have a lot of boxes then at the eastern and western edges of the circle you have boxes stacked almost directly on top of each other, with their X's very close to one another but they are saved from touching by having just enough Y distance between them.
So... to make this work, you must scale the maximum of dx and dy to be (for all cases) at least the radius (or was it double the radius?).
Corrected code is here: http://ideone.com/EQ03g http://ideone.com/VRyyo
Tested again in GnuPlot, it produces beautiful little circles of boxes where sometimes just 1 or 2 boxes are exactly touching. Problem solved! :)
(These images are wider than they are tall because GnuPlot didn't know I wanted proportional layout. Just imagine the whole works squeezed into a square shape :) )
I would calculate an upper bound of the minimum radius, by working with circles enclosing the squares instead of with the squares themselves.
My calculation results in:
Rmin <= X / (sqrt(2) * sin (180/N) )
Where:
X is the square side length, and N is the required number of squares.
I assume that the circles are positioned such that their centers fall on the big circle's circumference.
-- EDIT --
Using the idea of Dave in the comment below, we can also calculate a nice lower bound, by considering the circles to be inside the squares (thus having radius X/2). This bound is:
Rmin >= X / (2 * sin (180/N) )
As already noted, the problem of positioning n points equally spaced round the circumference of a circle is trivial. The (not-terribly) difficult part of the problem is to figure out the radius of the circle needed to give a pleasing layout of the squares. I suggest you follow one of the other answers and think of the squares being inside a circular 'buffer' big enough to contain the square and enough space to satisfy your aesthetic requirements. Then check the formula for the chord length between the centres of neighbouring squares. Now you have the angle, at the centre of the circle, subtended by the chord between square centres, and can easily compute the radius of the circle from the trigonometry of a triangle.
And, as to your follow up question: I suggest that you work out the problem for squares of side length min(h,w) on a circle, then transform the squares to rectangles and the circle to an ellipse with eccentricity h/w (or w/h).
I would solve it like this:
To find the relation between the radius r and length l let's analyze dimensionless representation
get the centres on a circle (x1,y1)..(xn,yn)
from each center get lower right corner of the i-th square and upper left corner of the i+1-th square
the two points should either have equal x or equal y, whichever yields smaller l
procedure should be repeated for each center and the one that yields smallest l is the final solution.
This is the optimal solution and can be solved it terms of r = f(l).
The solution can be adapted to rectangles by adjusting the formula for xLR[i] and yUL[i+1].
Will try to give some pseudo code.
EDIT:
There's a bug in the procedure, lower right and upper left are not necessary closest points for two neighbouring squares/rectangles.
Let's assume you solved the problem for 3 or 4 squares.
If you have n >= 5 squares, and position one square at the top of the circle, you'll have another square fall into the first quadrant of a cartesian plane concentric with your circle.
The problem is then to find a radius r for the circle such that the left side of the circle next to the top one, and the right side of the top circle do not 'cross' each other.
The x coordinate of the right side of the top circle is x1 = L/2, where L is the side of a square. The x coordinate of the left side of the circle next to the top one is x2 = r cos a - L/2, where r is the radius and a is the angle between each pair of square centres (a = 360/n degrees).
So we need to solve x1 <= x2, which leads to
r >= L / cos a.
L and a are known, so we're done :-)
You start with an arbitrary circle (e.g., with a diameter of (* n l)) and position the squares evenly on the circumference. Then you go through each pair of adjacent squares and:
calculate the straight line connecting their mid points,
calculate the intersection of this line with the intervening square sides (M1 and M2 are the mid points, S1 and S2 the corresponding intersections with the square side:
S2 S1
M1--------------*----------*---------------M2
------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| M1 |
| \ |
| \ |
| -------*------- +--------
| | \ | |
| | \ | |
-------+---------*------ |
| \ |
| M2 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
-------------------------
calculate the scale factor you would need to make S1 and S2 fall together (simply the ratio of the sum of M1-S1 and S2-M2 to M1-M2), and
finally scale the circle by the maximum of the found scale factors.
Edit: This is the exact solution. However, a little thought can optimize this further for speed:
You only need to do this for the squares closest to 45° (if n is even) resp. 45° and 135° (if n is odd; actually, you might prove that only one of these is necessary).
For large n, the optimal spacing of the squares on the circle will quickly approach the length of a diagonal of a square. You could thus precompute the scaling factors for a few small n (up to a dozen or so), and then have a good enough approximation with the diagonal.
Given a set of n points on plane, I want to preprocess these points somehow faster than O(n^2) (O(nlog(n)) preferably), and then be able to answer on queries of the following kind "How many of n points lie inside a circle with given center and radius?" faster than O(n) (O(log(n) preferably).
Can you suggest some data structure or algorithm I can use for this problem?
I know that such types of problems are often solved using Voronoi diagrams, but I don't know how to apply it here.
Build a spatial subdivision structure such as a quadtree or KD-tree of the points. At each node store the amount of points covered by that node. Then when you need to count the points covered by the lookup circle, traverse the tree and for each subdivision in a node check if it is fully outside the circle, then ignore it, if it is fully inside the circle then add its count to the total if it intersects with the circle, recurse, when you get to the leaf, check the point(s) inside the leaf for containment.
This is still O(n) worst case (for instance if all the points lie on the circle perimeter) but average case is O(log(n)).
Build a KD-tree of the points, this should give you much better complexity than O(n), on average O(log(n)) I think.
You can use a 2D tree since the points are constrained to a plane.
Assuming that we have transformed the problem into 2D, we'll have something like this for the points:
struct Node {
Pos2 point;
enum {
X,
Y
} splitaxis;
Node* greater;
Node* less;
};
greater and less contains points with greater and lesser coordinates respectively along the splitaxis.
void
findPoints(Node* node, std::vector<Pos2>& result, const Pos2& origin, float radius) {
if (squareDist(origin - node->point) < radius * radius) {
result.push_back(node->point);
}
if (!node->greater) { //No children
return;
}
if (node->splitaxis == X) {
if (node->point.x - origin.x > radius) {
findPoints(node->greater, result, origin radius);
return;
}
if (node->point.x - origin.x < -radius) {
findPoints(node->less, result, origin radius);
return;
}
findPoints(node->greater, result, origin radius);
findPoints(node->less, result, origin radius);
} else {
//Same for Y
}
}
Then you call this function with the root of the KD-tree
If my goal is speed, and the number of points weren't huge (millions,) I'd focus on memory footprint as much as algorithmic complexity.
An unbalanced k-d tree is best on paper, but it requires pointers, which can expand memory footprint by 3x+, so it is out.
A balanced k-d tree requires no storage, other than for an array with one scalar for each point. But it too has a flaw: the scalars can not be quantized - they must be the same 32 bit floats as in the original points. If they are quantized, it is no longer possible to guarantee that a point which appears earlier in the array is either on the splitting plane, or to its left AND that a point which appears later in the array is either on the splitting plane, or to its right.
There is a data structure I developed that addresses this problem. The Synergetics folks tell us that volume is experientially four-directional. Let's say that a plane is likewise experientially three-directional.
We're accustomed to traversing a plane by the four directions -x, +x, -y, and +y, but it's simpler to use the three directions a, b, and c, which point at the vertices of an equilateral triangle.
When building the balanced k-d tree, project each point onto the a, b, and c axes. Sort the points by increasing a. For the median point, round down, quantize and store a. Then, for the sub-arrays to the left and right of the median, sort by increasing b, and for the median points, round down, quantize, and store b. Recurse and repeat until each point has stored a value.
Then, when testing a circle (or whatever) against the structure, first calculate the maximum a, b, and c coordinates of the circle. This describes a triangle. In the data structure we made in the last paragraph, compare the median point's a coordinate to the circle's maximum a coordinate. If the point's a is larger than the circle's a, we can disqualify all points after the median. Then, for the sub-arrays to the left and right (if not disqualified) of the median, compare the circle's b to the median point's b coordinate. Recurse and repeat until there are no more points to visit.
This is similar in theme to the BIH data structure, but requires no intervals of -x and +x and -y and +y, because a, b, and c are just as good at traversing the plane, and require one fewer direction to do it.
Assuming you have a set of points S in a cartesian plane with coordinates (xi,yi), given an arbitrary circle with center (xc,yc) and radius r you want to find all the points contained within that circle.
I will also assume that the points and the circle may move so certain static structures that can speed this up won't necessarily be appropriate.
Three things spring to mind that can speed this up:
Firstly, you can check:
(xi-xc)^2 + (yi-yc)^2 <= r^2
instead of
sqrt((xi-xc)^2 + (yi-yc)^2) <= r
Secondly, you can cull the list of points somewhat by remembering that a point can only be within the circle if:
xi is in the range [xc-r,xc+r]; and
yi is in the range [yc-r,yc+r]; and
This is known as a bounding box. You can use it as either an approximation or to cut down your list of points to a smaller subset to check accurately with the first equation.
Lastly, sort your points in either x or y order and then you can do a bisection search to find the set of points that are possibly within your bounding box, further cutting down on unnecessary checks.
I used Andreas's code but it contains a bug. For example I had two points on the plane [13, 2], [13, -1] and my origin point was [0, 0] with a radius of 100. It finds only 1 point. This is my fix:
void findPoints(Node * root, vector<Node*> & result, Node * origin, double radius, int currAxis = 0) {
if (root) {
if (pow((root->coords[0] - origin->coords[0]), 2.0) + pow((root->coords[1] - origin->coords[1]), 2.0) < radius * radius) {
result.push_back(root);
}
if (root->coords[currAxis] - origin->coords[currAxis] > radius) {
findPoints(root->right, result, origin, radius, (currAxis + 1) % 2);
return;
}
if (origin->coords[currAxis] - root->coords[currAxis] > radius) {
findPoints(root->left, result, origin, radius, (currAxis + 1) % 2);
return;
}
findPoints(root->right, result, origin, radius, (currAxis + 1) % 2);
findPoints(root->left, result, origin, radius, (currAxis + 1) % 2);
}
}
The differnce is Andreas checked for now children with just if (!root->greater) which is not complete. I on the other hand don't do that check, I simply check if the root is valid.
Let me know if you find a bug.
depending on how much precomputing time you have, you could build a tree like this:
first node branches are x-values, below them are y-value nodes, and below them are radius value nodes. at each leaf is a hashset of points.
when you want to compute the points at x,y,r: go through your tree and go down the branch that matches your x,y values the closest. when you get down to the root level, you need to do a little match (constant time stuff), but you can find a radius such that all the points in that circle (defined by the path in the tree) are inside the circle specified by x,y,r, and another circle (same x_tree,y_tree in the tree as before, but different r_tree) such that all of the points in the original circle (specified by x,y,r) are in that circle.
from there, go through all the points in the larger of the two tree circles: if a point is in the smaller circle add it to the results, if not, run the distance check on it.
only problem is that it takes a very long time to precompute the tree. although, you can specify the amount of time you want to spend by changing how many x,y, and r branches you want to have in your tree.
Actually this is a classic problem as SO user Victor put it (in another SO question regarding which tasks to ask during an interview).
I couldn't do it in an hour (sigh) so what is the algorithm that calculates the number of integer points within a triangle?
EDIT: Assume that the vertices are at integer coordinates. (otherwise it becomes a problem of finding all points within the triangle and then subtracting all the floating points to be left with only the integer points; a less elegant problem).
Assuming the vertices are at integer coordinates, you can get the answer by constructing a rectangle around the triangle as explained in Kyle Schultz's An Investigation of Pick's Theorem.
For a j x k rectangle, the number of interior points is
I = (j – 1)(k – 1).
For the 5 x 3 rectangle below, there are 8 interior points.
(source: uga.edu)
For triangles with a vertical leg (j) and a horizontal leg (k) the number of interior points is given by
I = ((j – 1)(k – 1) - h) / 2
where h is the number of points interior to the rectangle that are coincident to the hypotenuse of the triangles (not the length).
(source: uga.edu)
For triangles with a vertical side or a horizontal side, the number of interior points (I) is given by
(source: uga.edu)
where j, k, h1, h2, and b are marked in the following diagram
(source: uga.edu)
Finally, the case of triangles with no vertical or horizontal sides can be split into two sub-cases, one where the area surrounding the triangle forms three triangles, and one where the surrounding area forms three triangles and a rectangle (see the diagrams below).
The number of interior points (I) in the first sub-case is given by
(source: uga.edu)
where all the variables are marked in the following diagram
(source: uga.edu)
The number of interior points (I) in the second sub-case is given by
(source: uga.edu)
where all the variables are marked in the following diagram
(source: uga.edu)
Pick's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick%27s_theorem) states that the surface of a simple polygon placed on integer points is given by:
A = i + b/2 - 1
Here A is the surface of the triangle, i is the number of interior points and b is the number of boundary points. The number of boundary points b can be calculated easily by summing the greatest common divisor of the slopes of each line:
b = gcd(abs(p0x - p1x), abs(p0y - p1y))
+ gcd(abs(p1x - p2x), abs(p1y - p2y))
+ gcd(abs(p2x - p0x), abs(p2y - p0y))
The surface can also be calculated. For a formula which calculates the surface see https://stackoverflow.com/a/14382692/2491535 . Combining these known values i can be calculated by:
i = A + 1 - b/2
My knee-jerk reaction would be to brute-force it:
Find the maximum and minimum extent of the triangle in the x and y directions.
Loop over all combinations of integer points within those extents.
For each set of points, use one of the standard tests (Same side or Barycentric techniques, for example) to see if the point lies within the triangle. Since this sort of computation is a component of algorithms for detecting intersections between rays/line segments and triangles, you can also check this link for more info.
This is called the "Point in the Triangle" test.
Here is an article with several solutions to this problem: Point in the Triangle Test.
A common way to check if a point is in a triangle is to find the vectors connecting the point to each of the triangle's three vertices and sum the angles between those vectors. If the sum of the angles is 2*pi (360-degrees) then the point is inside the triangle, otherwise it is not.
Ok I will propose one algorithm, it won't be brilliant, but it will work.
First, we will need a point in triangle test. I propose to use the "Barycentric Technique" as explained in this excellent post:
http://www.blackpawn.com/texts/pointinpoly/default.html
Now to the algorithm:
let (x1,y1) (x2,y2) (x3,y3) be the triangle vertices
let ymin = floor(min(y1,y2,y3)) ymax = ceiling(max(y1,y2,y3)) xmin = floor(min(x1,x2,x3)) ymax = ceiling(max(x1,x2,3))
iterating from xmin to xmax and ymin to ymax you can enumerate all the integer points in the rectangular region that contains the triangle
using the point in triangle test you can test for each point in the enumeration to see if it's on the triangle.
It's simple, I think it can be programmed in less than half hour.
I only have half an answer for a non-brute-force method. If the vertices were integer, you could reduce it to figuring out how to find how many integer points the edges intersect. With that number and the area of the triangle (Heron's formula), you can use Pick's theorem to find the number of interior integer points.
Edit: for the other half, finding the integer points that intersect the edge, I suspect that it's the greatest common denominator between the x and y difference between the points minus one, or if the distance minus one if one of the x or y differences is zero.
Here's another method, not necessarily the best, but sure to impress any interviewer.
First, call the point with the lowest X co-ord 'L', the point with the highest X co-ord 'R', and the remaining point 'M' (Left, Right, and Middle).
Then, set up two instances of Bresenham's line algorithm. Parameterize one instance to draw from L to R, and the second to draw from L to M. Run the algorithms simultaneously for X = X[L] to X[M]. But instead of drawing any lines or turning on any pixels, count the pixels between the lines.
After stepping from X[L] to X[M], change the parameters of the second Bresenham to draw from M to R, then continue to run the algorithms simultaneously for X = X[M] to X[R].
This is very similar to the solution proposed by Erwin Smout 7 hours ago, but using Bresenham instead of a line-slope formula.
I think that in order to count the columns of pixels, you will need to determine whether M lies above or below the line LR, and of course special cases will arise when two points have the same X or Y co-ordinate. But by the time this comes up, your interviewer will be suitably awed and you can move on to the next question.
Quick n'dirty pseudocode:
-- Declare triangle
p1 2DPoint = (x1, y1);
p2 2DPoint = (x2, y2);
p3 2DPoint = (x3, y3);
triangle [2DPoint] := [p1, p2, p3];
-- Bounding box
xmin float = min(triangle[][0]);
xmax float = max(triangle[][0]);
ymin float = min(triangle[][1]);
ymax float = max(triangle[][1]);
result [[float]];
-- Points in bounding box might be inside the triangle
for x in xmin .. xmax {
for y in ymin .. ymax {
if a line starting in (x, y) and going in any direction crosses one, and only one, of the lines between the points in the triangle, or hits exactly one of the corners of the triangle {
result[result.count] = (x, y);
}
}
}
I have this idea -
Let A(x1, y1), B(x2, y2) and C(x3, y3) be the vertices of the triangle. Let 'count' be the number of integer points forming the triangle.
If we need the points on the triangle edges then using Euclidean Distance formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_distance, the length of all three sides can be ascertained.
The sum of length of all three sides - 3, would give that count.
To find the number of points inside the triangle we need to use a triangle fill algorithm and instead of doing the actual rendering i.e. executing drawpixel(x,y), just go through the loops and keep updating the count as we loop though.
A triangle fill algorithm from
Fundamentals of Computer Graphics by
Peter Shirley,Michael Ashikhmin
should help. Its referred here http://www.gidforums.com/t-20838.html
cheers
I'd go like this :
Take the uppermost point of the triangle (the one with the highest Y coordinate). There are two "slopes" starting at that point. It's not the general solution, but for easy visualisation, think of one of both "going to the left" (decreasing x coordinates) and the other one "going to the right".
From those two slopes and any given Y coordinate less than the highest point, you should be able to compute the number of integer points that appear within the bounds set by the slopes. Iterating over decreasing Y coordinates, add all those number of points together.
Stop when your decreasing Y coordinates reach the second-highest point of the triangle.
You have now counted all points "above the second-highest point", and you are now left with the problem of "counting all the points within some (much smaller !!!) triangle, of which you know that its upper side parallels the X-axis.
Repeat the same procedure, but now with taking the "leftmost point" instead of the "uppermost", and with proceedding "by increasing x", instead of by "decreasing y".
After that, you are left with the problem of counting all the integer points within a, once again much smaller, triangle, of which you know that its upper side parallels the X-axis, and its left side parallels the Y-axis.
Keep repeating (recurring), until you count no points in the triangle you're left with.
(Have I now made your homework for you ?)
(wierd) pseudo-code for a bit-better-than-brute-force (it should have O(n))
i hope you understand what i mean
n=0
p1,p2,p3 = order points by xcoordinate(p1,p2,p3)
for int i between p1.x and p2.x do
a = (intersection point of the line p1-p2 and the line with x==i).y
b = (intersection point of the line p1-p3 and the line with x==i).y
n += number of integers between floats (a, b)
end
for i between p2.x+1 and p3.x do
a = (intersection point of the line p2-p3 and the line with x==i).y
b = (intersection point of the line p1-p3 and the line with x==i).y
n += number of integers between floats (a, b)
end
this algorithm is rather easy to extend for vertices of type float (only needs some round at the "for i.." part, with a special case for p2.x being integer (there, rounded down=rounded up))
and there are some opportunities for optimization in a real implementation
Here is a Python implementation of #Prabhala's solution:
from collections import namedtuple
from fractions import gcd
def get_points(vertices):
Point = namedtuple('Point', 'x,y')
vertices = [Point(x, y) for x, y in vertices]
a, b, c = vertices
triangle_area = abs((a.x - b.x) * (a.y + b.y) + (b.x - c.x) * (b.y + c.y) + (c.x - a.x) * (c.y + a.y))
triangle_area /= 2
triangle_area += 1
interior = abs(gcd(a.x - b.x, a.y - b.y)) + abs(gcd(b.x - c.x, b.y - c.y)) + abs(gcd(c.x - a.x, c.y - a.y))
interior /= 2
return triangle_area - interior
Usage:
print(get_points([(-1, -1), (1, 0), (0, 1)])) # 1
print(get_points([[2, 3], [6, 9], [10, 160]])) # 289
I found a quite useful link which clearly explains the solution to this problem. I am weak in coordinate geometry so I used this solution and coded it in Java which works (at least for the test cases I tried..)
Link
public int points(int[][] vertices){
int interiorPoints = 0;
double triangleArea = 0;
int x1 = vertices[0][0], x2 = vertices[1][0], x3 = vertices[2][0];
int y1 = vertices[0][1], y2 = vertices[1][1], y3 = vertices[2][1];
triangleArea = Math.abs(((x1-x2)*(y1+y2))
+ ((x2-x3)*(y2+y3))
+ ((x3-x1)*(y3+y1)));
triangleArea /=2;
triangleArea++;
interiorPoints = Math.abs(gcd(x1-x2,y1-y2))
+ Math.abs(gcd(x2-x3, y2-y3))
+ Math.abs(gcd(x3-x1, y3-y1));
interiorPoints /=2;
return (int)(triangleArea - interiorPoints);
}