Below is a list of 3 point patterns with measured tree data.
ppp_list
[[1]]
Marked planar point pattern: 3 points
Mark variables: SPCD, DIA, HT
window: polygonal boundary
enclosing rectangle: [-9215316, -9215301] x [8549428, 8549443] units
[[2]]
Marked planar point pattern: 4 points
Mark variables: SPCD, DIA, HT
window: polygonal boundary
enclosing rectangle: [-8942245, -8942230] x [8838323, 8838337] units
[[3]]
Marked planar point pattern: 7 points
Mark variables: SPCD, DIA, HT
window: polygonal boundary
enclosing rectangle: [-8320491, -8320476] x [9268799, 9268813] units
Below are the covariates that I am adding to be included in the hyperframe.
temp <- c(50.75,65.75,48)
prec <- c(85.75,56.42,38.25)
myhyperframe <- hyperframe(trees=ppp_list, temp=temp, prec=prec)
Below is the structure of my hyperframe.
Hyperframe:
trees temp prec
1 (ppp) 50.75 85.75
2 (ppp) 65.75 56.42
3 (ppp) 48.00 38.25
When I tried to run a point process model using the "mppm" function, it comes up with an error saying that my point pattern is not multitype. I am unsure if I am approaching running point process models correctly. The "mppm" function works for the dataset "simba" and when I made the "waterstriders" dataset a hyperframe.
mppm(trees ~ 1, myhyperframe)
# Error in (function (data, dummy, method = c("grid", "dirichlet"), ...) :
# data pattern is not multitype
Any feedback would be great. Thank you!
This is not a problem of formatting.
mppm and ppm do not yet support the analysis of point patterns with multiple columns of marks, or point patterns with continuous numeric marks.
The error message says that the point pattern is not multitype. A multitype point pattern is one which has a single column of marks, which are a factor.
You can either remove the marks, or convert them to a factor, before applying mppm.
Related
I need to offset a curve, which by the simplest way is just shifting the points perpendicularly. I can access each point to calculate angle of each line along given path, for now I use atan2. Then I take those two angle and make average of it. It returns the shortest angle, not what I need in this case.
How can I calculate angle of each connection? Concerning that I am not interested in the shortest angle but the one that would create parallel offset curve.
Assuming 2D case...
So do a cross product of direction vectors of 2 neighboring lines the sign of z coordinate of the result will tell you if the lines are CW/CCW
So if you got 3 consequent control points on the polyline: p0,p1,p2 then:
d1 = p1-p0
d2 = p2-p1
if you use some 3D vector math then convert them to 3D by setting:
d1.z=0;
d2.z=0;
now compute 3D cross:
n = cross(d1,d2)
which returns vector perpendicular to both vectors of size equals to the area of quad (parallelogram) constructed with d1,d2 as base vectors. The direction (from the 2 possible) is determined by the winding rule of the p0,p1,p2 so inspecting z of the result is enough.
The n.x,n.y are not needed so you can compute directly without doing full cross product:
n.z=(d1.x*d2.y)-(d1.y*d2.x)
if (n.z>0) case1
if (n.z<0) case2
if the case1 is CW or CCW depends on your coordinate system properties (left/right handness). This approach is very commonly used in CG fur back face culling of polygons ...
if n.z is zero it means that your vectors/lines are either parallel or at lest one of them is zero.
I think these might interest you:
draw outline for some connected lines
How can I create an internal spiral for a polygon?
Also in 2D you do not need atan2 to get perpendicular vector... You can do instead this:
u = (x,y)
v = (-y,x)
w = (x,-y)
so u is any 2D vector and v,w are the 2 possible perpendicular vectors to u in 2D. they are the result of:
cross((x,y,0),(0,0,1))
cross((0,0,1),(x,y,0))
So here's a little bit of geometry for you. I've been stuck on this for a while now:
I need to write a script (in C#, but feel free to answer in whatever script you'd like) that generates random points. A points has to values, x and y.
I must generate N points total (where N > 1 and is also randomly up to 100).
point 1 must be x = 0, y = 0. point 2 must be of distance 1 from point 1. So that Root(x2 + y2) = 1.
point 3 must be of distance 1 from point 2 and so on and so forth.
Now here's the tricky part - point N must be of distance 1 from point 1. So if you were to connect all points into a single shape, you'd get a closed shape with each vertices being the same length.
(vertices may cross and you may even have two points at exactly the same location. As long as it's random).
Any idea how you'd do that?
I would do it with simulation of chain there are 2 basic ways one is start from regular polygon and then randomize one point a bit (rotate a bit) then iterate the rest to maintain the segment size=1.
The second one is start with full random open chain (like in MBo answer) and then iteratively change the angles until the last point is on desired distance from first point. I think the second approach is a bit simpler to code...
If you want something more complicated then you can generate M random points and handle them as closed Bezier curve cubic patches loop control points. Then just find N equidistant points on it (this is hard task) and rescale the whole thing to match segment line size = 1
If you want to try first approach then
Regular polygon start (closed loop)
Start with regular polygon (equidistant points on circle). So divide circle to N angular segments. Select radius r so line length match l=1
so r=0.5/cos(pi/N) ... from half angle triangle
Make function to rotate i-th point by some single small step
So just rotate the i-th point around (i-1)th point with radius 1 and then iteratively change the {i+1,...N} points to match segments sizes
you can exploit symmetry to avoid bullet #2
but this will lead not to very random result for small N. Just inverse rotation of 2 touching segments for random point p(i) and loop this many times.
to make it more random you can apply symmetry on whole parts (between 2 random points) instead of on 2 lines only
The second approach is like this:
create randomized open chain (like in MBo's answer)
so all segments are already with size=1.0. Remember also the angle not just position
i-th point iteration
for simplicity let the points be called p1,p2,...pn
compute d0=||pn-p1|-1.0|
rotate point pi left by some small da angle step
compute dl=||pn-p1|-1.0|
rotate point pi right by 2.0*da
compute dr=||pn-p1|-1.0|
rotate point pi to original position ... left by da
now chose direction closer to the solution (min dl,dr,d0) so:
if d0 is minimal do not change this point at all and stop
if dl is minimal then rotate left by da while dl is lowering
if dr is minimal then rotate right by da while dr is lowering
solution
loop bullet #2 while the d=||pn-p0|-1.0| is lowering then change da to da*=0.1 and loop again. Stop if da step is too small or no change in d after loop iteration.
[notes]
Booth solutions are not precise your distances will be very close to 1.0 but can be +/- some error dependent on the last da step size. If you rotate point pi then just add/sub angle to all pi,pi+1,pi+2,..pn points
Edit: This is not an answer, closeness has not been taken into account.
It is known that Cos(Fi)^2 + Sin(Fi)^2 = 1 for any angle Fi
So you may use the next approach:
P[0].X = 0
P[0].Y = 0
for i = 1 .. N - 1:
RandomAngle = 2 * Pi * Random(0..1)
P[i].X = P[i-1].X + Cos(RandomAngle)
P[i].Y = P[i-1].Y + Sin(RandomAngle)
Here is example image of what I want to do:
I want to calculate Path 1 from Path 2.
Screenshot made from Inkscape, where I'm, at first, create Path 1, then add p3 to the original path. This is didn't change the original path at all, because new point actually unneeded. So, how can I detect this point(p3) using Path 2 SVG path representation and calculate Path 1 from Path 2?
Basically, I search for the math formulas, which can help me to convert(also checking that whether it is possible):
C 200,300 300,250 400,250 C 500,250 600,300 600,400
to
C 200,200 600,200 600,400
You're solving a constraint problem. Taking your first compound curve, and using four explicit coordinates for each subcurve, we have:
points1 = point[8];
points2 = point[4];
with the following correspondences:
points1[0] == points2[0];
points1[7] == points2[3];
direction(points1[0],points1[1]) == direction(points2[0], points2[1]);
direction(points1[6],points1[7]) == direction(points2[2], points2[3]);
we also have a constraint on the relative placement for points2[1] and points2[2] due to the tangent of the center point in your compound curve:
direction(points1[2],points[4]) == direction(points2[1],points2[2]);
and lastly, we have a general constraint on where on- and off-curve points can be for cubic curves if we want the curve to pass through a point, which is described over at http://pomax.github.io/bezierinfo/#moulding
Taking the "abc" ratio from that section, we can check whether your compound curve parameters fit a cubic curve: if we construct a new cubic curve with points
A = points1[0];
B = points1[3];
C = points1[7];
with B at t=0.5 (in this case), then we can verify whether the resulting curve fits the constraints that must hold for this to be a legal simplification.
The main problem here is that we, in general, don't know whether the "in between start and end" point should fall on t=0.5, or whether it's a different t value. The easiest solution is to see how far that point is along the total curve (using arc length: distance = arclength(c1) / arclength(c1)+arclength(c2) will tell us) and use that as initial guess for t, iterating outward on either side for a few values.
The second option is to solve a generic cubic equation for the tangent vector at your "in between" point. We form a cubic curve with points
points3 = [ points1[0], points1[1], points1[6], points1[7] ];
and then solve its derivative equations to find one or more t values that have the same tangent direction (but not magnitude!) as our in-between point. Once we have those (and we might have more than 2), we evaluate whether we can create a curve through our three points of interest with the middle point set to each of those found t values. Either one or zero of the found t values will yield a legal curve. If we have one: perfect, we found a simplification. If we find none, then the compound curve cannot be simplified into a single cubic curve.
I am trying to generate a certain amount of random uniform points inside a rectangle (I know the pair of coordinates for each corner).
Let our rectangle be
ABCD
My idea is:
Divide the rectangle into two triangles by the AC diagonal. Find the slope and the intercept of the diagonal.
Then, generate two random numbers from [0,1] interval, let them be a,b.
Evaluate x = aAB and y = bAD (AB, AD, distances). If A is not (0,0), then we can add to x and y A's coordinates.
Now we have a point (x,y). If it is not in the lower triangle (ABC), skip to the next step.
Else, add the point to our plot and also add the symmetric of (x,y) vs. the AC diagonal so that we can fill the upper triangle (ADC) too.
I have implemented this, but I highly doubt that the points are uniformly generated (judging from the plot). How should I modify my algorithm? I guess that the issue is related to how I pick the triangle and the symmetric thing.
Why not just generate x=random([A.x, B.x]) and y=random([B.y, C.y]) and put them together as (x,y)? A n-dimensional uniform distribution is simply the product of the n uniform distributions of the components.
This is referred to as point picking and other similar terms. You seem to be on the right track in that the points should come from the uniform distribution. Your plot looks reasonably random to me.
What are you doing with upper and lower triangles? They seem unnecessary and would certainly make things less random. Is this some form variance reduction along the lines of antithetic variates? If #Paddy3118 is right an you really just need random-ish points to fill the space, then you should look into low-discrepancy sequences. The Halton sequence generalizes the van der Corput sequence to multiple dimensions. If you have Matlab's Statistics Toolbox check out the sobolset and haltonset functions or qrandstream and qrand.
This approach (from #Xipan Xiao & #bonanova.) should be reproducible in many languages. MATLAB code below.
a = 0; b = 1;
n = 2000;
X = a + (b-a)*rand(n,1);
Y = a + (b-a)*rand(n,1);
Newer versions of MATLAB can make use of the makedist and random commands.
pdX = makedist('Uniform',a,b);
pdY = makedist('Uniform',a,b);
X = random(pdX,n,1);
Y = random(pdY,n,1);
The points (X,Y) will be uniformly in the rectangle with corner points (a,a), (a,b), (b,a), (b,b).
For verification, we can observe the marginal distributions for X and Y and see that those are uniform as well.
scatterhist(X,Y,'Marker','.','Direction','out')
Update: Using haltonset (suggested by #horchler)
p = haltonset(2);
XY = net(p,2000);
scatterhist(XY(:,1),XY(:,2),'Marker','.','Direction','out')
If you are after a more uniform density then you might consider a Van der Corput sequence. The sequence finds use in Monte-Carlo simulations and Wolfram Mathworld calls them a quasi-random sequence.
Generate two random numbers in the interval [0,1] translate and scale them to your rectangle as x and y.
There is just my thought, i haven't test with code yet.
1.Divide the rectangle to grid with N x M cells, depends on variable density.
2.loop through the cell and pick a random point in the cell until it reached your target point quantity.
Given:
A point P, circle 1 and circle 2's positions and radii
What is:
The equation for T, the 'mix level' between color 1 and 2 (a value between 0 to 1)
Many radial gradient equations only apply to concentric circles or circles that share a position. I'm looking for something that matches the image below, created using Quartz (Core Graphics). I am writing a GLSL shader, but I need to understand the math first.
If this is in 2D, then you can write the parameters of the circle that your point lies on as:
x3=T*x1+(1-T)*x2
y3=T*y1+(1-T)*y2
r3=T*r1+(1-T)*r2
EDIT: Of course, that circle can be represented as:
(x3-xP)^2+(y3-yP)^2=r3^2
You can substitute the first 3 equations into the last (and remember that (xP, yP) is your point) to get 1 equation with only T as a variable that is quadratic in T, so it is easy to solve for T. Doing so gives us:
T=(-r2*(r1-r2)+(x1-x2)*(x2-xP)+(y1-y2)(y2-yP)
{+-}sqrt(r2^2*((x1-xP)^2+(y1-yP)^2)-2*r1*r2*((x1-xP)*(x2-xP)
+(y1-yP)*(y2-yP))+r1^2*((x2-xP)^2+(y2-yP)^2)
-(x2*y1-xP*y1-x1*y2+xP*y2+x1*yP-x2*yP)^2))
/((r1-r2)^2-(x1-x2)^2-(y1-y2)^2)
I know that that is a bit hard to read, but it is not actually that bad mathematically. It is just addition, multiplication, and squaring (which is really just multiplication).