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);
}
Related
I found this challenge problem which states the following :
Suppose that there are n rectangles on the XY plane. Write a program to calculate the maximum possible number of rectangles that can be crossed with a single straight line drawn on this plane.
I have been brainstorming for quite a time but couldn't find any solution.
Maybe at some stage, we use dynamic programming steps but couldn't figure out how to start.
Here is a sketch of an O(n^2 log n) solution.
First, the preliminaries shared with other answers.
When we have a line passing through some rectangles, we can translate it to any of the two sides until it passes through a corner of some rectangle.
After that, we fix that corner as the center of rotation and rotate the line to any of the two sides until it passes through another corner.
During the whole process, all points of intersection between our line and rectangle sides stayed on these sides, so the number of intersections stayed the same, as did the number of rectangles crossed by the line.
As a result, we can consider only lines which pass through two rectangle corners, which is capped by O(n^2), and is a welcome improvement compared to the infinite space of arbitrary lines.
So, how do we efficiently check all these lines?
First, let us have an outer loop which fixes one point A and then considers all lines passing through A.
There are O(n) choices of A.
Now, we have one point A fixed, and want to consider all lines AB passing through all other corners B.
In order to do that, first sort all other corners B according to the polar angle of AB, or, in other words, angle between axis Ox and vector AB.
Angles are measured from -PI to +PI or from 0 to 2 PI or otherwise, the point in which we cut the circle to sort angles can be arbitrary.
The sorting is done in O(n log n).
Now, we have points B1, B2, ..., Bk sorted by the polar angle around point A (their number k is something like 4n-4, all corners of all rectangles except the one where point A is a corner).
First, look at the line AB1 and count the number of rectangles crossed by that line in O(n).
After that, consider rotating AB1 to AB2, then AB2 to AB3, all the way to ABk.
The events which happen during the rotation are as follows:
When we rotate to ABi, and Bi is the first corner of some rectangle in our order, the number of rectangles crossed increases by 1 as soon as the rotating line hits Bi.
When we rotate to ABj, and Bj is the last corner of some rectangle in our order, the number of rectangles crossed decreases by 1 as soon as the line rotates past Bj.
Which corners are first and last can be established with some O(n) preprocessing, after the sort, but before considering the ordered events.
In short, we can rotate to the next such event and update the number of rectangles crossed in O(1).
And there are k = O(n) events in total.
What's left to do is to track the global maximum of this quantity throughout the whole algorithm.
The answer is just this maximum.
The whole algorithm runs in O(n * (n log n + n + n)), which is O(n^2 log n), just as advertised.
Solution
In the space of all lines in the graph, the lines which pass by a corner are exactly the ones where the number or intersections is about to decrease. In other words, they each form a local maximum.
And for every line which passes by at least one corner, there exist an associated line that passes by two corners that has the same number of intersections.
The conclusion is that we only need to check the lines formed by two rectangle corners as they form a set that fully represents the local maxima of our problem. From those we pick the one which has the most intersections.
Time complexity
This solution first needs to recovers all lines that pass by two corners. The number of such line is O(n^2).
We then need to count the number of intersections between a given line and a rectangle. This can obviously be done in O(n) by comparing to each rectangles.
There might be a more efficient way to proceed, but we know that this algorithm is then at most O(n^3).
Python3 implementation
Here is a Python implementation of this algorithm. I oriented it more toward readability than efficiency, but it does exactly what the above defines.
def get_best_line(rectangles):
"""
Given a set of rectangles, return a line which intersects the most rectangles.
"""
# Recover all corners from all rectangles
corners = set()
for rectangle in rectangles:
corners |= set(rectangle.corners)
corners = list(corners)
# Recover all lines passing by two corners
lines = get_all_lines(corners)
# Return the one which has the highest number of intersections with rectangles
return max(
((line, count_intersections(rectangles, line)) for line in lines),
key=lambda x: x[1])
This implementation uses the following helpers.
def get_all_lines(points):
"""
Return a generator providing all lines generated
by a combination of two points out of 'points'
"""
for i in range(len(points)):
for j in range(i, len(points)):
yield Line(points[i], points[j])
def count_intersections(rectangles, line):
"""
Return the number of intersections with rectangles
"""
count = 0
for rectangle in rectangles:
if line in rectangle:
count += 1
return count
And here are the class definition that serve as data structure for rectangles and lines.
import itertools
from decimal import Decimal
class Rectangle:
def __init__(self, x_range, y_range):
"""
a rectangle is defined as a range in x and a range in y.
By example, the rectangle (0, 0), (0, 1), (1, 0), (1, 1) is given by
Rectangle((0, 1), (0, 1))
"""
self.x_range = sorted(x_range)
self.y_range = sorted(y_range)
def __contains__(self, line):
"""
Return whether 'line' intersects the rectangle.
To do so we check if the line intersects one of the diagonals of the rectangle
"""
c1, c2, c3, c4 = self.corners
x1 = line.intersect(Line(c1, c4))
x2 = line.intersect(Line(c2, c3))
if x1 is True or x2 is True \
or x1 is not None and self.x_range[0] <= x1 <= self.x_range[1] \
or x2 is not None and self.x_range[0] <= x2 <= self.x_range[1]:
return True
else:
return False
#property
def corners(self):
"""Return the corners of the rectangle sorted in dictionary order"""
return sorted(itertools.product(self.x_range, self.y_range))
class Line:
def __init__(self, point1, point2):
"""A line is defined by two points in the graph"""
x1, y1 = Decimal(point1[0]), Decimal(point1[1])
x2, y2 = Decimal(point2[0]), Decimal(point2[1])
self.point1 = (x1, y1)
self.point2 = (x2, y2)
def __str__(self):
"""Allows to print the equation of the line"""
if self.slope == float('inf'):
return "y = {}".format(self.point1[0])
else:
return "y = {} * x + {}".format(round(self.slope, 2), round(self.origin, 2))
#property
def slope(self):
"""Return the slope of the line, returning inf if it is a vertical line"""
x1, y1, x2, y2 = *self.point1, *self.point2
return (y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1) if x1 != x2 else float('inf')
#property
def origin(self):
"""Return the origin of the line, returning None if it is a vertical line"""
x, y = self.point1
return y - x * self.slope if self.slope != float('inf') else None
def intersect(self, other):
"""
Checks if two lines intersect.
Case where they intersect: return the x coordinate of the intersection
Case where they do not intersect: return None
Case where they are superposed: return True
"""
if self.slope == other.slope:
if self.origin != other.origin:
return None
else:
return True
elif self.slope == float('inf'):
return self.point1[0]
elif other.slope == float('inf'):
return other.point1[0]
elif self.slope == 0:
return other.slope * self.origin + other.origin
elif other.slope == 0:
return self.slope * other.origin + self.origin
else:
return (other.origin - self.origin) / (self.slope - other.slope)
Example
Here is a working example of the above code.
rectangles = [
Rectangle([0.5, 1], [0, 1]),
Rectangle([0, 1], [1, 2]),
Rectangle([0, 1], [2, 3]),
Rectangle([2, 4], [2, 3]),
]
# Which represents the following rectangles (not quite to scale)
#
# *
# *
#
# ** **
# ** **
#
# **
# **
We can clearly see that an optimal solution should find a line that passes by three rectangles and that is indeed what it outputs.
print('{} with {} intersections'.format(*get_best_line(rectangles)))
# prints: y = 0.50 * x + -5.00 with 3 intersections
(Edit of my earlier answer that considered rotating the plane.)
Here's sketch of the O(n^2) algorithm, which combines Gassa's idea with Evgeny Kluev's reference to dual line arrangements as sorted angular sequences.
We start out with a doubly connected edge list or similar structure, allowing us to split an edge in O(1) time, and a method to traverse the faces we create as we populate a 2-dimensional plane. For simplicity, let's use just three of the twelve corners on the rectangles below:
9| (5,9)___(7,9)
8| | |
7| (4,6)| |
6| ___C | |
5| | | | |
4| |___| | |
3| ___ |___|(7,3)
2| | | B (5,3)
1|A|___|(1,1)
|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
We insert the three points (corners) in the dual plane according to the following transformation:
point p => line p* as a*p_x - p_y
line l as ax + b => point l* as (a, -b)
Let's enter the points in order A, B, C. We first enter A => y = x - 1. Since there is only one edge so far, we insert B => y = 5x - 3, which creates the vertex, (1/2, -1/2) and splits our edge. (One elegant aspect of this solution is that each vertex (point) in the dual plane is actually the dual point of the line passing through the rectangles' corners. Observe 1 = 1/2*1 + 1/2 and 3 = 1/2*5 + 1/2, points (1,1) and (5,3).)
Entering the last point, C => y = 4x - 6, we now look for the leftmost face (could be an incomplete face) where it will intersect. This search is O(n) time since we have to try each face. We find and create the vertex (-3, -18), splitting the lower edge of 5x - 3 and traverse up the edges to split the right half of x - 1 at vertex (5/3, 2/3). Each insertion has O(n) time since we must first find the leftmost face, then traverse each face to split edges and mark the vertices (intersection points for the line).
In the dual plane we now have:
After constructing the line arrangement, we begin our iteration on our three example points (rectangle corners). Part of the magic in reconstructing a sorted angular sequence in relation to one point is partitioning the angles (each corresponding with an ordered line intersection in the dual plane) into those corresponding with a point on the right (with a greater x-coordinate) and those on the left and concatenating the two sequences to get an ordered sequence from -90 deg to -270 degrees. (The points on the right transform to lines with positive slopes in relation to the fixed point; the ones on left, with negative slopes. Rotate your sevice/screen clockwise until the line for (C*) 4x - 6 becomes horizontal and you'll see that B* now has a positive slope and A* negative.)
Why does it work? If a point p in the original plane is transformed into a line p* in the dual plane, then traversing that dual line from left to right corresponds with rotating a line around p in the original plane that also passes through p. The dual line marks all the slopes of this rotating line by the x-coordinate from negative infinity (vertical) to zero (horizontal) to infinity (vertical again).
(Let's summarize the rectangle-count-logic, updating the count_array for the current rectangle while iterating through the angular sequence: if it's 1, increment the current intersection count; if it's 4 and the line is not directly on a corner, set it to 0 and decrement the current intersection count.)
Pick A, lookup A*
=> x - 1.
Obtain the concatenated sequence by traversing the edges in O(n)
=> [(B*) 5x - 3, (C*) 4x - 6] ++ [No points left of A]
Initialise an empty counter array, count_array of length n-1
Initialise a pointer, ptr, to track rectangle corners passed in
the opposite direction of the current vector.
Iterate:
vertex (1/2, -1/2)
=> line y = 1/2x + 1/2 (AB)
perform rectangle-count-logic
if the slope is positive (1/2 is positive):
while the point at ptr is higher than the line:
perform rectangle-count-logic
else if the slope is negative:
while the point at ptr is lower than the line:
perform rectangle-count-logic
=> ptr passes through the rest of the points up to the corner
across from C, so intersection count is unchanged
vertex (5/3, 2/3)
=> line y = 5/3x - 2/3 (AC)
We can see that (5,9) is above the line through AC (y = 5/3x - 2/3), which means at this point we would have counted the intersection with the rightmost rectangle and not yet reset the count for it, totaling 3 rectangles for this line.
We can also see in the graph of the dual plane, the other angular sequences:
for point B => B* => 5x - 3: [No points right of B] ++ [(C*) 4x - 6, (A*) x - 1]
for point C => C* => 4x - 6: [(B*) 5x - 3] ++ [(A*) x - 1]
(note that we start at -90 deg up to -270 deg)
How about the following algorithm:
RES = 0 // maximum number of intersections
CORNERS[] // all rectangles corners listed as (x, y) points
for A in CORNERS
for B in CORNERS // optimization: starting from corner next to A
RES = max(RES, CountIntersectionsWithLine(A.x, A.y, B.x, B.y))
return RES
In other words, start drawing lines from each rectangle corner to each other rectangle corner and find the maximum number of intersections. As suggested by #weston, we can avoid calculating same line twice by starting inner loop from the corner next to A.
If you consider a rotating line at angle Θ and if you project all rectangles onto this line, you obtain N line segments. The maximum number of rectangles crossed by a perpendicular to this line is easily obtained by sorting the endpoints by increasing abscissa and keeping a count of the intervals met from left to right (keep a trace of whether an endpoint is a start or an end). This is shown in green.
Now two rectangles are intersected by all the lines at an angle comprised between the two internal tangents [example in red], so that all "event" angles to be considered (i.e. all angles for which a change of count can be observed) are these N(N-1) angles.
Then the brute force resolution scheme is
for all limit angles (O(N²) of them),
project the rectangles on the rotating line (O(N) operations),
count the overlaps and keep the largest (O(N Log N) to sort, then O(N) to count).
This takes in total O(N³Log N) operations.
Assuming that the sorts needn't be re-done in full for every angle if we can do them incrementally, we can hope for a complexity lowered to O(N³). This needs to be checked.
Note:
The solutions that restrict the lines to pass through the corner of one rectangle are wrong. If you draw wedges from the four corners of a rectangle to the whole extent of another, there will remain empty space in which can lie a whole rectangle that won't be touched, even though there exists a line through the three of them.
We can have an O(n^2 (log n + m)) dynamic-programming method by adapting Andriy Berestovskyy's idea of iterating over the corners slightly to insert the relationship of the current corner vis a vis all the other rectangles into an interval tree for each of our 4n iteration cycles.
A new tree will be created for the corner we are trying. For each rectangle's four corners we'll iterate over each of the other rectangles. What we'll insert will be the angles marking the arc the paired-rectangle's farthest corners create in relation to the current fixed corner.
In the example directly below, for the fixed lower rectangle's corner R when inserting the record for the middle rectangle, we would insert the angles marking the arc from p2 to p1 in relation to R (about (37 deg, 58 deg)). Then when we check the high rectangle in relation to R, we'll insert the interval of angles marking the arc from p4 to p3 in relation to R (about (50 deg, 62 deg)).
When we insert the next arc record, we'll check it against all intersecting intervals and keep a record of the most intersections.
(Note that because any arc on a 360 degree circle for our purpose has a counterpart rotated 180 degrees, we may need to make an arbitrary cutoff (any alternative insights would be welcome). For example, this means that an arc from 45 degrees to 315 degrees would split into two: [0, 45] and [135, 180]. Any non-split arc could only intersect with one or the other but either way, we may need an extra hash to make sure rectangles are not double-counted.)
Hi sorry for the confusing title.
I'm trying to make a race track using points. I want to draw 3 rectangles which form my roads. However I don't want these rectangles to overlap, I want to leave an empty space between them to place my corners (triangles) meaning they only intersect at a single point. Since the roads have a common width I know the width of the rectangles.
I know the coordinates of the points A, B and C and therefore their length and the angles between them. From this I think I can say that the angles of the yellow triangle are the same as those of the outer triangle. From there I can work out the lengths of the sides of the blue triangles. However I don't know how to find the coordinates of the points of the blue triangles or the length of the sides of the yellow triangle and therefore the rectangles.
This is an X-Y problem (asking us how to accomplish X because you think it would help you solve a problem Y better solved another way), but luckily you gave us Y so I can just answer that.
What you should do is find the lines that are the edges of the roads, figure out where they intersect, and proceed to calculate everything else from that.
First, given 2 points P and Q, we can write down the line between them in parameterized form as f(t) = P + t(Q - P). Note that Q - P = v is the vector representing the direction of the line.
Second, given a vector v = (x_v, y_v) the vector (y_v, -x_v) is at right angles to it. Divide by its length sqrt(x_v**2 + y_v**2) and you have a unit vector at right angles to the first. Project P and Q a distance d along this vector, and you've got 2 points on a parallel line at distance d from your original line.
There are two such parallel lines. Given a point on the line and a point off of the line, the sign of the dot product of your normal vector with the vector between those two lines tells you whether you've found the parallel line on the same side as the other, or on the opposite side.
You just need to figure out where they intersect. But figuring out where lines P1 + t*v1 and P2 + s*v2 intersect can be done by setting up 2 equations in 2 variables and solving that. Which calculation you can carry out.
And now you have sufficient information to calculate the edges of the roads, which edges are inside, and every intersection in your diagram. Which lets you figure out anything else that you need.
Slightly different approach with a bit of trigonometry:
Define vectors
b = B - A
c = C - A
uB = Normalized(b)
uC = Normalized(c)
angle
Alpha = atan2(CrossProduct(b, c), DotProduct(b,c))
HalfA = Alpha / 2
HalfW = Width / 2
uB_Perp = (-uB.Y, ub.X) //unit vector, perpendicular to b
//now calculate points:
P1 = A + HalfW * (uB * ctg(HalfA) + uB_Perp) //outer blue triangle vertice
P2 = A + HalfW * (uB * ctg(HalfA) - uB_Perp) //inner blue triangle vertice, lies on bisector
(I did not consider extra case of too large width)
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.
I'm searching the way to efficiently find the point on an edge which is the closest point to some other point.
Let's say I know two points which are vertices of the edge. I can calculate the equation of the line that crosses those points.
What is the best way to calculate the point on the edge which is the closest point to some other point in the plane.
I would post an image but I don't have enough reputation points.
Let’s assume the line is defined by the two points (x1,y1), (x2,y2) and the “other point” is (a,b).
The point you’re looking for is (x,y).
You can easily find the equation of the black line. To find the blue line equation use the fact that m1*m2=-1 (m1 and m2 are the slopes of the two lines).
Clearly, the point you’re looking for is the intersection between the two lines.
There are two exceptions to what I was saying:
If x1=x2 then (x,y)=(x1,b).
If y1=y2 then (x,y)=(a,y1).
The following Python function finds the point (if you don’t know Python just think of it as a psudo-code):
def get_closest_point( x1,y1, x2,y2, a,b ):
if x1==x2: return (x1,b)
if y1==y2: return (a,y1)
m1 = (y2-y1)/(x2-x1)
m2 = -1/m1
x = (m1*x1-m2*a+b-y1) / (m1-m2)
y = m2*(x-a)+b
return (x,y)
You have three zones to consider. The "perpendicular" approach is for the zone in the middle:
For the other two zones the distance is the distance to the nearest segment endpoint.
The equation for the segment is:
y[x] = m x + b
Where
m -> -((Ay - By)/(-Ax + By)),
b -> -((-Ax By + Ay By)/(Ax - By))
And the perpendiculars have slope -1/m
The equations for the perpendicular passing thru A is:
y[x] = (-Ax + By)/(Ay - By) x + (Ax^2 + Ay^2 - Ax By - Ay By)/(Ay - By)
And the perpendicular passing thru B is the same exchanging the A's and B's in the equation above.
So you can know in which region lies your point introducing its x coordinate in the above equations and then comparing the y coordinate of the point with the result of y[x]
Edit
How to find in which region lies your point?
Let's suppose Ax ≤ Bx (if it's the other way, just change the point labels in the following formulae)
We will call your point {x0,y0}
1) Calculate
f[x0] = (-Ax + By)/(Ay - By) x0 + (Ax^2 + Ay^2 - Ax By - Ay By)/(Ay - By)
and compare with y0.
If y0 > f[x0], then your point lies in the green field in the figure above and the nearest point is A.
2) Else, Calculate
g[x0] = (-Bx + Ay)/(By - Ay) x0 + (Bx^2 + By^2 - Bx Ay - By Ay)/(By - Ay)
and compare with y0.
If y0 < g[x0], then your point lies in the yellow field in the figure above and the nearest point is B.
3) Else, you are in the "perpendicular light blue zone", and any of the other answer tell you how to calculate the nearest point and distance (I am not going to plagiarize :))
HTH!
I can describe what you want to do in geometric terms, but I don't have the algorithm at hand. Will that help?
Anyway, you want to draw a line which contains the stray point and is perpendicular to the edge. I think the slopes are a negative inverse relation between perpendicular lines, if that helps.
Then you want to find the intersection of the two lines.
Let's stick with the 2D case to save typing. It's been a while, so please forgive any elementary mistakes in my algebra.
The line forming the edge between the two points (x1, y1), (x2, y2) is represented as a function
y = mx + b
(You get to figure out m and b yourself, but it's elementary)
What you want to do is minimize the distance from your point (p1, p2) to a point on this line, i.e.
(p1-x)^2 + (p2-y)^2 (equation I)
subject to the equation
y = mx + b (equation II)
Substitute equation II into equation I and solve for x. You'll get two solutions; pick the one which gives the smaller value in equation I.
I have a line, defined by the parameters m, h, where
y = m*x + h
This line goes across a grid (i.e. pixels). For each square (a, b) of the grid (ie the square [a, a+1] x [b, b+1]), I want to determine if the given line crosses this square or not, and if so, what is the length of the segment in the square.
Eventually, I would like to be able to do this with multiple lines at once (ie m and h are vectors, matlab-style), but we can focus on the "simple" case for now.
I figured how to determine if the line crosses the square:
Compute the intersection of the line with the vertical lines x = a and x = a + 1, and the horizontal lines y = b and y = b + 1
Check if 2 of these 4 points are on the square boundaries (ie a <= x < a + 1 and b <= y < b + 1)
If two on these points are on the square, the line crosses it. Then, to compute the length, you simply subtract the two points, and use Pythagorean theorem.
My problem is more on the implementation side: how can I implement that nicely (especially when selecting which 2 points to subtract) ?
Let square be defined by corner points (a,b), (a+1,b), (a,b+1), (a+1,b+1).
Step 1: Check if the line intersects the square...
(a)Substitute each of the coordinates of the 4 corner points, in turn into y - mx - h. If the sign of this evaluation includes both positive and negative terms, go to step b. Otherwise, the line does not intersect the square.
(b)Now there are two sub-cases:
(b1)Case 1: In step (a) you had three points for which y - mx - h evaluated to one sign and the fourth point evaluated to the other sign. Let this 4th point be some (x*,y*). Then the points of intersection are (x*,mx*+h) and ((y*-h)/m,y*).
(b2)Case 2: In step (a) you had two points for which y - mx - h evaluate to one sign and the other two points evaluated to the other sign. Pick any two points that evaluated to the same sign, say (x*,y*) and (x*+1, y*). Then the intersection points are (x*, mx* + h) and (x*+1,m(x*+1) + h).
You would have to consider some degenerate cases where the line touches exactly one of the four corner points and the case where the line lies exactly on one side of the square.
Your proposed method may meet with problems in step (1) when m is 0 (when trying to compute the intersection with y = k).
if m is 0, then it's easy (the line segment length is either 1 or 0, depending on whether b <= h <= b+1).
Otherwise, you can find the intersections with x = a and a+1, say, y_a, y_{a+1} via a substitution. Then, clip y_a and y_{a+1} to between b and b+1 (say, y1 and y2, i.e. y1 = min(b+1, max(b, y_a)) and similarly for y2), and use the proportion abs((y1-y2)/m) * sqrt(m^2+1).
This makes use of the fact that the line segment between x=k and x=k+1 is sqrt(m^2+1), and the difference in y is m, and similarity.
You can do like this:
first find center of square and then find length of diagonal. If the distance from center of square to line is less than length of diagonal then the line will intersect the square. and once you know that line will intersect then you can easily find the intersected line segment. I think you are trying to make weight matrix for Algebraic reconstruction technique. I hope this is correct answer. This was my first answer in stack flow. :)