Just wanted to know what is the best approach (in terms of speed and accuracy) to determine the points of intersection on N spheres (it was asked for two spheres here); wanted to know what would be the best language to do this. More detailed explanation about what I want to do is here.
As near as I can tell, you are asking for the intersection loci of each pair of N 3D spheres.
Counting symmetry, there are N * (N-1) / 2 pairs.
So take each pair.
If the distance between centers is greater than the sum of their radii, there is no intersection.
(Edit: Or, as #Ben points out, if the distance is less than the difference of radii, there is also no intersection.)
If it is equal, the intersection is a single point, easily found on the line segment between centers.
If it is less, the locus is a circle, not a point.
To find the center of that circle and its radius, you're going to need to take a plane slice through the two spheres.
That reduces the problem to finding the intersection of two circles.
For that you need the Law of Cosines.
Elaborated: Look at that Wikipedia diagram. a and b are the radii of the two spheres, and c is the distance between centers.
Use the second-to-last equation and solve for cos(alpha).
From that you can easily get sin(alpha).
Then b sin(alpha) is the radius of the circle,
and b cos(alpha) is the distance to its center.
(Note - this doesn't call any trig functions, only sqrt.)
Once you know the center and radius of the circle of intersection, the circle itself is just in a plane normal to the line segment connecting the sphere centers.
Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you want.
If i get you right, you want all intersections of at least two spheres from a group of N spheres, right?
If so, this is acually not an easy problem for high performance computing, at least not if you need an accurate solution.
This problem is also solved when calculating the "Reduced Surface" of molecules:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8906967
There are several publications on how to efficiently calculate these points and circles, but it is not an easy task.
I believe there was a publication to calculating these values with CUDA, but I don't remember the details. Google (Scholar) should be able to help you in this direction.
However, depending on what you want to achieve, there can be easier solutions.
So, perhaps you could detail your question?
Related
This question is an extension on some computation details of this question.
Suppose one has a set of (potentially overlapping) circles, and one wishes to compute the area this set of circles covers. (For simplicity, one can assume some precomputation steps have been made, such as getting rid of circles included entirely in other circles, as well as that the circles induce one connected component.)
One way to do this is mentioned in Ants Aasma's and Timothy's Shields' answers, being that the area of overlapping circles is just a collection of circle slices and polygons, both of which the area is easy to compute.
The trouble I'm encountering however is the computation of these polygons. The nodes of the polygons (consisting of circle centers and "outer" intersection points) are easy enough to compute:
And at first I thought a simple algorithm of picking a random node and visiting neighbors in clockwise order would be sufficient, but this can result in the following "outer" polygon to be constructed, which is not part of the correct polygons.
So I thought of different approaches. A Breadth First Search to compute minimal cycles, but I think the previous counterexample can easily be modified so that this approach results in the "inner" polygon containing the hole (and which is thus not a correct polygon).
I was thinking of maybe running a Las Vegas style algorithm, taking random points and if said point is in an intersection of circles, try to compute the corresponding polygon. If such a polygon exists, remove circle centers and intersection points composing said polygon. Repeat until no circle centers or intersection points remain.
This would avoid ending up computing the "outer" polygon or the "inner" polygon, but would introduce new problems (outside of the potentially high running time) e.g. more than 2 circles intersecting in a single intersection point could remove said intersection point when computing one polygon, but would be necessary still for the next.
Ultimately, my question is: How to compute such polygons?
PS: As a bonus question for after having computed the polygons, how to know which angle to consider when computing the area of some circle slice, between theta and 2PI - theta?
Once we have the points of the polygons in the right order, computing the area is a not too difficult.
The way to achieve that is by exploiting planar duality. See the Wikipedia article on the doubly connected edge list representation for diagrams, but the gist is, given an oriented edge whose right face is inside a polygon, the next oriented edge in that polygon is the reverse direction of the previous oriented edge with the same head in clockwise order.
Hence we've reduced the problem to finding the oriented edges of the polygonal union and determining the correct order with respect to each head. We actually solve the latter problem first. Each intersection of disks gives rise to a quadrilateral. Let's call the centers C and D and the intersections A and B. Assume without loss of generality that the disk centered at C is not smaller than the disk centered at D. The interior angle formed by A→C←B is less than 180 degrees, so the signed area of that triangle is negative if and only if A→C precedes B→C in clockwise order around C, in turn if and only if B→D precedes A→D in clockwise order around D.
Now we determine which edges are actually polygon boundaries. For a particular disk, we have a bunch of angle intervals around its center from before (each sweeping out the clockwise sector from the first endpoint to the second). What we need amounts to a more complicated version of the common interview question of computing the union of segments. The usual sweep line algorithm that increases the cover count whenever it scans an opening endpoint and decreases the cover count whenever it scans a closing endpoint can be made to work here, with the adjustment that we need to initialize the count not to 0 but to the proper cover count of the starting angle.
There's a way to do all of this with no trigonometry, just subtraction and determinants and comparisons.
I have a 3D mesh consisting of triangle polygons. My mesh can be either oriented left or right:
I'm looking for a method to detect mesh direction: right vs left.
So far I tried to use mesh centroid:
Compare centroid to bounding-box (b-box) center
See if centroid is located left of b-box center
See if centroid is located right of b-box center
But the problem is that the centroid and b-box center don't have a reliable difference in most cases.
I wonder what is a quick algorithm to detect my mesh direction.
Update
An idea proposed by #collapsar is ordering Convex Hull points in clockwise order and investigating the longest edge:
UPDATE
Another approach as suggested by #YvesDaoust is to investigate two specific regions of the mesh:
Count the vertices in two predefined regions of the bounding box. This is a fairly simple O(N) procedure.
Unless your dataset is sorted in some way, you can't be faster than O(N). But if the point density allows it, you can subsample by taking, say, every tenth point while applying the procedure.
You can as well keep your idea of the centroid, but applying it also in a subpart.
The efficiency of an algorithm to solve your problem will depend on the data structures that represent your mesh. You might need to be more specific about them in order to obtain a sufficiently performant procedure.
The algorithms are presented in an informal way. For a more rigorous analysis, math.stackexchange might be a more suitable place to ask (or another contributor is more adept to answer ...).
The algorithms are heuristic by nature. Proposals 1 and 3 will work fine for meshes whose local boundary's curvature is mostly convex locally (skipping a rigorous mathematical definition here). Proposal 2 should be less dependent on the mesh shape (and can be easily tuned to cater for ill-behaved shapes).
Proposal 1 (Convex Hull, 2D)
Let M be the set of mesh points, projected onto a 'suitable' plane as suggested by the graphics you supplied.
Compute the convex hull CH(M) of M.
Order the n points of CH(M) in clockwise order relative to any point inside CH(M) to obtain a point sequence seq(P) = (p_0, ..., p_(n-1)), with p_0 being an arbitrary element of CH(M). Note that this is usually a by-product of the convex hull computation.
Find the longest edge of the convex polygon implied by CH(M).
Specifically, find k, such that the distance d(p_k, p_((k+1) mod n)) is maximal among all d(p_i, p_((i+1) mod n)); 0 <= i < n;
Consider the vector (p_k, p_((k+1) mod n)).
If the y coordinate of its head is greater than that of its tail (ie. its projection onto the line ((0,0), (0,1)) is oriented upwards) then your mesh opens to the left, otherwise to the right.
Step 3 exploits the condition that the mesh boundary be mostly locally convex. Thus the convex hull polygon sides are basically short, with the exception of the side that spans the opening of the mesh.
Proposal 2 (bisector sampling, 2D)
Order the mesh points by their x coordinates int a sequence seq(M).
split seq(M) into 2 halves, let seq_left(M), seq_right(M) denote the partition elements.
Repeat the following steps for both point sets.
3.1. Select randomly 2 points p_0, p_1 from the point set.
3.2. Find the bisector p_01 of the line segment (p_0, p_1).
3.3. Test whether p_01 lies within the mesh.
3.4. Keep a count on failed tests.
Statistically, the mesh point subset that 'contains' the opening will produce more failures for the same given number of tests run on each partition. Alternative test criteria will work as well, eg. recording the average distance d(p_0, p_1) or the average length of (p_0, p_1) portions outside the mesh (both higher on the mesh point subset with the opening). Cut off repetition of step 3 if the difference of test results between both halves is 'sufficiently pronounced'. For ill-behaved shapes, increase the number of repetitions.
Proposal 3 (Convex Hull, 3D)
For the sake of completeness only, as your problem description suggests that the analysis effectively takes place in 2D.
Similar to Proposal 1, the computations can be performed in 3D. The convex hull of the mesh points then implies a convex polyhedron whose faces should be ordered by area. Select the face with the maximum area and compute its outward-pointing normal which indicates the direction of the opening from the perspective of the b-box center.
The computation gets more complicated if there is much variation in the side lengths of minimal bounding box of the mesh points, ie. if there is a plane in which most of the variation of mesh point coordinates occurs. In the graphics you've supplied that would be the plane in which the mesh points are rendered assuming that their coordinates do not vary much along the axis perpendicular to the plane.
The solution is to identify such a plane and project the mesh points onto it, then resort to proposal 1.
I am using boost geometry and I am trying to calculate a "bounded" polygon (see image below) from intersecting polylines (linestrings 2d in Boost geometry). Currently, my approach is i) to get all the intersection points between these lines and then ii) "split" each line at the intersection points. However, this algorithm is a little bit exhaustive. Does anyone know if boost geometry has something more efficient for this?
Moreover, how could I get the segment (or vector of points) for each linestring that lie withing two intersection points? For example, for the green linestring, if I have the two red intersection points, how can I get the linestring between these two points (vector of points containing the two red intersection points and the two interior blue points)? Is there any "split"-like functionality in boost geometry?
Any suggestion is much appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance.
From the given description, it seems that the (poly)lines intersect in pairs to form a single loop, so that the inner polygon is well defined. If this is not true, the solution is not unique.
As the number of lines is small, exhaustive search for the pairwise intersections will not be a big sin. For 5 (poly)lines, there are 10 pairs to be tried, while you expect 5 intersections. Forming the loop from the intersections is not a big deal.
What matters most is if Boost Geometry uses an efficient algorithm to intersect polylines. Unsure if this is documented. For moderate numbers of vertices (say below 100), this is not so important.
If the number of points is truly large, you can resort to an efficient line segment intersection algorithm, which lowers the complexity from O(n²+k) down to O((n+k) log n). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley%E2%80%93Ottmann_algorithm. You can process all polylines in a single go.
If your polylines have specific properties, they can be exploited to ease the task.
I found some solutions, but they're too messy.
Yes. The Chebyshev center, x*, of a set C is the center of the largest ball that lies inside C. [Boyd, p. 416] When C is a convex set, then this problem is a convex optimization problem.
Better yet, when C is a polyhedron, then this problem becomes a linear program.
Suppose the m-sided polyhedron C is defined by a set of linear inequalities: ai^T x <= bi, for i in {1, 2, ..., m}. Then the problem becomes
maximize R
such that ai^T x + R||a|| <= bi, i in {1, 2, ..., m}
R >= 0
where the variables of minimization are R and x, and ||a|| is the Euclidean norm of a.
Perhaps these "too messy" solutions are what you actually looking for, and there are no simplier ones?
I can suggest a simple, but potentially imprecise solution, which uses numerical analysis. Assume you have a resilient ball, and you inflate it, starting from radius zero. If its center is not in the center you're looking for, then it will move, because the walls would "push" it in the proper direction, until it reaches the point, from where he can't move anywhere else. I guess, for a convex polygon, the ball will eventually move to the point where it has maximum radius.
You can write a program that emulates the process of circle inflation. Start with an arbitrary point, and "inflate" the circle until it reaches a wall. If you keep inflating it, it will move in one of the directions that don't make it any closer to the walls it already encounters. You can determine the possible ways where it could move by drawing the lines that are parallel to the walls through the center you're currently at.
In this example, the ball would move in one of the directions marked with green:
(source: coldattic.info)
Then, move your ball slightly in one of these directions (a good choice might be moving along the bisection of the angle), and repeat the step. If the new radius would be less than the one you have, retreat and decrease the pace you move it. When you'll have to make your pace less than a value of, say, 1 inch, then you've found the centre with precision of 1 in. (If you're going to draw it on a screen, precision of 0.5 pixel would be good enough, I guess).
If an imprecise solution is enough for you, this is simple enough, I guess.
Summary: It is not trivial. So it is very unlikely that it will not get messy. But there are some lecture slides which you may find useful.
Source: http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/30304481/finding-the-maximum-inscribed-circle-in-c.aspx
Your problem is not trivial, and there
is no C# code that does this straight
out of the box. You will have to write
your own. I found the problem
intriguing, and did some research, so
here are a few clues that may help.
First, here's an answer in "plain
English" from mathforum.org:
Link
The answer references Voronoi Diagrams
as a methodology for making the
process more efficient. In researching
Voronoi diagrams, in conjunction with
the "maximum empty circle" problem
(same problem, different name), I came
across this informative paper:
http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~held/teaching/compgeo/slides/vd_slides.pdf
It was written by Martin Held, a
Computational Geometry professor at
the University of Salzberg in Austria.
Further investigation of Dr. Held's
writings yielded a couple of good
articles:
http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~held/projects/vroni/vroni.html
http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~held/projects/triang/triang.html
Further research into Vornoi Diagrams
yielded the following site:
http://www.voronoi.com/
This site has lots of information,
code in various languages, and links
to other resources.
Finally, here is the URL to the
Mathematics and Computational Sciences
Division of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (U.S.), a
wealth of information and links
regarding mathematics of all sorts:
http://math.nist.gov/mcsd/
-- HTH,
Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP
The largest inscribed circle (I'm assuming it's unique) will intersect some of the faces tangentially, and may fail to intersect others. Let's call a face "relevant" if the largest inscribed circle intersects it, and "irrelevant" otherwise.
If your convex polygon is in fact a triangle, then the problem can be solved by calculating the triangle's incenter, by intersecting angle bisectors. This may seem a trivial case, but even when
your convex polygon is complicated, the inscribed circle will always be tangent to at least three faces (proof? seems geometrically obvious), and so its center can be calculated as the incenter of three relevant faces (extended outwards to make a triangle which circumscribes the original polygon).
Here we assume that no two such faces are parallel. If two are parallel, we have to interpret the "angle bisector" of two parallel lines to mean that third parallel line between them.
This immediately suggests a rather terrible algorithm: Consider all n-choose-3 subsets of faces, find the incenters of all triangles as above, and test each circle for containment in the original polygon. Maximize among those that are legal. But this is cubic in n and we can do much better.
But it's possible instead to identify faces that are irrelevant upfront: If a face is tangent
to some inscribed circle, then there is a region of points bounded by that face and by the two angle bisectors at its endpoints, wherein the circle's center must lie. If even the circle whose center lies at the farthest tip of that triangular region is "legal" (entirely contained in the polygon), then the face itself is irrelevant, and can be removed. The two faces touching it should be extended beyond it so that they meet.
By iteratively removing faces which are irrelevant in this sense, you should be able to reduce the
polygon to a triangle, or perhaps a trapezoid, at which point the problem will be easily solved, and its solution will still lie within the original polygon.
I am programming an algorithm where I have broken up the surface of a sphere into grid points (for simplicity I have the grid lines parallel and perpendicular to the meridians). Given a point A, I would like to be able to efficiently take any grid "square" and determine the point B in the square with the least spherical coordinate distance AB. In the degenerate case the "squares" are actually "triangles".
I am actually only using it to bound which squares I am searching, so I can also accept a lower bound if it is only a tiny bit off. For this reason, I need the algorithm to be extremely quick otherwise it would be better to just take the loss of accuracy and search a few more squares.
I decided to repost this question to Math Overflow: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/854/closest-grid-square-to-a-point-in-spherical-coordinates. More progress has been made here
For points on a sphere, the points closest in the full 3D space will also be closest when measured along the surface of the sphere. The actual distances will be different, but if you're just after the closest point it's probably easiest to minimize the 3D distance rather than worry about great circle arcs, etc.
To find the actual great-circle distance between two (latitidude, longitude) points on the sphere, you can use the first formula in this link.
A few points, for clarity.
Unless you specifically wish these squares to be square (and hence to not fit exactly in this parallel and perpendicular layout with regards to the meridians), these are not exactly squares. This is particularly visible if the dimensions of the square are big.
The question speaks of a [perfect] sphere. Matters would be somewhat different if we were considering the Earth (or other planets) with its flattened poles.
Following is a "algorithm" that would fit the bill, I doubt it is optimal, but could offer a good basis. EDIT: see Tom10's suggestion to work with the plain 3D distance between the points rather than the corresponding great cirle distance (i.e. that of the cord rather than the arc), as this will greatly reduce the complexity of the formulas.
Problem layout: (A, B and Sq as defined in the OP's question)
A : a given point the the surface of the sphere
Sq : a given "square" from the grid
B : solution to problem : point located within Sq which has the shortest
distance to A.
C : point at the center of Sq
Tentative algorithm:
Using the formulas associated with [Great Circle][1], we can:
- find the equation of the circle that includes A and C
- find the distance between A and C. See the [formula here][2] (kindly lifted
from Tom10's reply).
- find the intersect of the Great Circle arc between these points, with the
arcs of parallel or meridian defining the Sq.
There should be only one such point, unless this finds a "corner" of Sq,
or -a rarer case- if the two points are on the same diameter (see
'antipodes' below).
Then comes the more algorithmic part of this procedure (so far formulas...):
- find, by dichotomy, the point on Sq's arc/seqment which is the closest from
point A. We're at B! QED.
Optimization:
It is probably possible make a good "guess" as to the location
of B, based on the relative position of A and C, hence cutting the number of
iterations for the binary search.
Also, if the distance A and C is past a certain threshold the intersection
of the cicles' arcs is probably a good enough estimate of B. Only when A
and C are relatively close will B be found a bit further on the median or
parallel arc in these cases, projection errors between A and C (or B) are
smaller and it may be ok to work with orthogonal coordinates and their
simpler formulas.
Another approach is to calculate the distance between A and each of the 4
corners of the square and to work the dichotomic search from two of these
points (not quite sure which; could be on the meridian or parallel...)
( * ) *Antipodes case*: When points A and C happen to be diametrically
opposite to one another, all great circle lines between A and C have the same
length, that of 1/2 the circonference of the sphere, which is the maximum any
two points on the surface of a sphere may be. In this case, the point B will
be the "square"'s corner that is the furthest from C.
I hope this helps...
The lazy lower bound method is to find the distance to the center of the square, then subtract the half diagonal distance and bound using the triangle inequality. Given these aren't real squares, there will actually be two diagonal distances - we will use the greater. I suppose that it will be reasonably accurate as well.
See Math Overflow: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/854/closest-grid-square-to-a-point-in-spherical-coordinates for an exact solution