Intersect of two planes - divide by zero - geometry

I have following alghoritm to find line intersection of two planes:
public static function getIntersectOf2Planes ( self $P1 , self $P2 )
{
/* Line equation in parametric form:
x = x0 + t*a
y = y0 + t*b
z = z0 + t*c
*/
$x0 = ( $P1->B * $P2->D - $P2->B * $P1->D ) / ( $P1->A * $P2->B - $P2->A * $P1->B ) ;
$a = ( $P1->B * $P2->C - $P2->B * $P1->C );
$y0 = ( $P2->A * $P1->D - $P1->A * $P2->D ) / ( $P1->A * $P2->B - $P2->A * $P1->B ) ;
$b = ( $P2->A * $P1->C - $P1->A * $P2->C );
$z0 = 0;
$c = ( $P1->A * $P2->B - $P2->A * $P1->B );
$IntersectionLine = new Line3D( $x0, $a, $y0, $b, $z0, $c );
return $IntersectionLine;
}
and it works fine, but to compute $x0 and $y0 i have to divide by:
( $P1->A * $P2->B - $P2->A * $P1->B )
and in some cases, the value of this expression is equal to zero, so I get an "dividing by zero" error :(
What should I do in this case?
I know, that the case when this expression is equal to zero, doesn't mean that there is no intersection, because it's happen when I have planes perpendicular to one of the axies.
For example for:
Plane1:
A = 0
B = 0
C = 100
D = 0
Plane2:
A = 50
B = 0
C = 0
D = -250
so the equation of line should exists.
PS I wrote this code with a view to:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2766615/line-by-two-planes-intersection?noredirect=1#comment5706281_2766615

In short, you have to implement the intersection algorithm for the case when (a1*b2 - a2*b1) = 0 (ie. when the planes are not independent when you set z=0).
To expand on that, first we need to understand how you got this far. First let us write down the equation of two planes:
a1x + b1y + c1z + d1 = 0
and
a2x + b2y + c2z + d2 = 0
When two planes intersect, the intersection is a line. So, the most usual way to solve that is by finding a point first on such a line and then figuring out its orientation (a, b, c) in your case. The orientation is a straight forward cross product. The intersection point is typically calculated by setting one of the co-ordinates to 0 and then solving the 2 linear equations that you get. In your code, this is done by setting:
z = 0
But this only works when the equations
a1x + b1y + d1 = 0 and a2x + b2y + d2 = 0
are capable of giving a solution for x and y, which is not the case when a1b2-a2b1=0. So In such cases, you can solve the same by setting either x or y to 0 which again gives two linear equations that you can solve to obtain a point on the line. Then you can compute the parametric form much like how you did. For example (setting y to 0):
x0 = (c1d2 - c2d1)/(a1c2 - a2c1)
y0 = 0
z0 = (a2d1 - a1d2)/(a1c2 - a2c1)
But for this to be a defined value you need to have (a1c2 - a2c1) to be non-zero. Does this help?

Related

Mathematics - Distribute a list of numbers over an interval

My problem is simple.
I am searching a mathematical function to distribute number over an interval.
For example I have this list :
[2; 4; 9; 14]
And in my case I wish
2 -> 1 = f(2)
14 -> 20 = f(14)
4 -> f(4) = ?
9 -> f(9) = ?
This is just an example I am searching for f(x).
Someone would have any idea ?
Thanks for advance ! :)
If you want a linear function, then:
f(x) = lowerFunc + (x - lowerX) * (upperFunc - lowerFunc) / (upperX - lowerX),
where:
lowerFunc: function value at the lower end
upperFunc: function value at the upper end
lowerX: x parameter at the lower end
upperX: x parameter at the upper end.
For your example:
f(x) = 1 + (x - 2) * (20 - 1) / (14 - 2)
= 1 + (x - 2) * 19/12
f(2) = 1
f(4) = 4.1666
f(9) = 12.08333
f(14) = 20

basic fractal coloring problems

I am trying to get more comfortable with the math behind fractal coloring and understanding the coloring algorithms much better. I am the following paper:
http://jussiharkonen.com/files/on_fractal_coloring_techniques%28lo-res%29.pdf
The paper gives specific parameters to each of the functions, however when I use the same, my results are not quite right. I have no idea what could be going on though.
I am using the iteration count coloring algorithm to start and using the following julia set:
c = 0.5 + 0.25i and p = 2
with the coloring algorithm:
The coloring function simply returns the number of
elements in the truncated orbit divided by 20
And the palette function:
I(u) = k(u − u0),
where k = 2.5 and u0 = 0, was used.
And with a palette being white at 0 and 1, and interpolating to black in-between.
and following this algorithm:
Set z0 to correspond to the position of the pixel in the complex plane.
Calculate the truncated orbit by iterating the formula zn = f(zn−1) starting
from z0 until either
• |zn| > M, or
• n = Nmax,
where Nmax is the maximum number of iterations.
Using the coloring and color index functions, map the resulting truncated
orbit to a color index value.
Determine an RGB color of the pixel by using the palette function
Using this my code looks like the following:
float izoom = pow(1.001, zoom );
vec2 z = focusPoint + (uv * 4.0 - 2.0) * 1.0 / izoom;
vec2 c = vec2(0.5f, 0.25f) ;
const float B = 2.0;
float l;
for( int i=0; i<100; i++ )
{
z = vec2( z.x*z.x - z.y*z.y, 2.0*z.x*z.y ) + c;
if( length(z)>10.0) break;
l++;
}
float ind = basicindex(l);
vec4 col = color(ind);
and have the following index and coloring functions:
float basicindex(float val){
return val / 20.0;
}
vec4 color(float index){
float r = 2.5 * index;
float g = r;
float b = g;
vec3 v = 0.5 - 0.5 * sin(3.14/2.0 + 3.14 * vec3(r, g, b));
return vec4(1.0 - v, 1.0) ;
}
The paper provides the following image:
https://imgur.com/YIZMhaa
While my code produces:
https://imgur.com/OrxdMsN
I get the correct results by using k = 1.0 instead of 2.5, however I would prefer to understand why my results are incorrect. When extending this to the smooth coloring algorithms, my results are still incorrect so I would like to figure this out first.
Let me know if this isn't the correct place for this kind of question and I can move it to the math stack exchange. I wasn't sure which place was more appropriate.
Your image is perfectly implemented for Figure 3.3 in the paper. The other image you posted uses a different routine.
Your figure seems to have that bit of perspective code there at top, but remove that and they should be the same.
If your objection is the color extremes you set that with the "0.5 - 0.5 * ..." part of your code. This makes the darkest black originally 0.5 when in the example image you're trying to duplicate the darkest black should be 1 and the lightest white should be 0.
You're making the whiteness equal to the distance from 0.5
If you ignore the fractal all together you are getting a bunch of values that can be normalized between 0 and 1 and you're coloring those in some particular ways. Clearly the image you are duplicating is linear between 0 and 1 so putting black as 0.5 cannot be correct.
o = {
length : 500,
width : 500,
c : [.5, .25], // c = x + iy will be [x, y]
maxIterate : 100,
canvas : null
}
function point(pos, color){
var c = 255 - Math.round((1 + Math.log(color)/Math.log(o.maxIterate)) * 255);
c = c.toString(16);
if (c.length == 1) c = '0'+c;
o.canvas.fillStyle="#"+c+c+c;
o.canvas.fillRect(pos[0], pos[1], 1, 1);
}
function conversion(x, y, R){
var m = R / o.width;
var x1 = m * (2 * x - o.width);
var y2 = m * (o.width - 2 * y);
return [x1, y2];
}
function f(z, c){
return [z[0]*z[0] - z[1] * z[1] + c[0], 2 * z[0] * z[1] + c[1]];
}
function abs(z){
return Math.sqrt(z[0]*z[0] + z[1]*z[1]);
}
function init(){
var R = (1 + Math.sqrt(1+4*abs(o.c))) / 2,
z, x, y, i;
o.canvas = document.getElementById('a').getContext("2d");
for (x = 0; x < o.width; x++){
for (y = 0; y < o.length; y++){
i = 0;
z = conversion(x, y, R);
while (i < o.maxIterate && abs(z) < R){
z = f(z, o.c);
if (abs(z) > R) break;
i++;
}
if (i) point([x, y], i / o.maxIterate);
}
}
}
init();
<canvas id="a" width="500" height="500"></canvas>
via: http://jsfiddle.net/3fnB6/29/

How to Find a Point Where a Circle and Line with 1/0 Slope Intersect

I'm writing a simple 2D top-down game in Python 3 using tkinter. All the collidable objects are either circles/arcs or lines. I wrote the following method to detect when a circle hits a line:
I am using the formulas y = mx + b and r^2 = (x-h)^2 + (y-k)^2
def CheckHitCToL(self, LX0, LY0, LX1, LY1, CX0, CX1, Tab):
try:
H = self.Creatures[Tab].X
K = self.Creatures[Tab].Y
R = abs((CX0 - CX1) / 2)
M = (LY0 - LY1) / (LX0 - LX1)
B = M * (-LX1) + LY1
QA = (M * M) + 1
QB = (-H - H) + (((B - K) * M) * 2)
QC = (H * H) + ((B - K) * (B - K)) - (R * R)
X = (- QB + sqrt((QB * QB) - (4 * QA * QC))) / (2 * QA)
Y = (M * X) + B
if ((X <= LX0 and X >= LX1) or (X >= LX0 and X <= LX1)) and ((Y <= LY0 and Y >= LY1) or (Y >= LY0 and Y <= LY1)):
return True
else:
return False
except:
return False
My problem is when you have a vertical line, M (Or the slope) is (LY0 - LY1) / 0. (This is because the slope is equal to rise/run, and vertical lines don't have a run, just a rise) Which of course returns an error, caught by try except, which then informs my movement method that no collision has taken place. Of course I can simply move the "try:" down a few lines, but it's still going to throw an error. How can I adapt this program to not throw an error when working with a vertical line?
Well, the most obvious method would involve using if( (LX0 - LX1)==0 ) and doing this case separately. In such cases, you need to check whether distance between LX0 and CX0 is equal to the radius of circle.
You can use another forms of line equation -
implicit A*x + B*y + C = 0
or parametric x = LX0 + t * (LX1 - LX0), y = LY0 + t *(LY1 - LY0)
with appropriate modification of calculations

Partition line into equal parts

This is a geometry question.
I have a line between two points A and B and want separate it into k equal parts. I need the coordinates of the points that partition the line between A and B.
Any help is highly appreciated.
Thanks a lot!
You just need a weighted average of A and B.
C(t) = A * (1-t) + B * t
or, in 2-D
Cx = Ax * (1-t) + Bx * t
Cy = Ay * (1-t) + By * t
When t=0, you get A.
When t=1, you get B.
When t=.25, you a point 25% of the way from A to B
etc
So, to divide the line into k equal parts, make a loop and find C, for t=0/k, t=1/k, t=2/k, ... , t=k/k
for(int i=0;i<38;i++)
{
Points[i].x = m_Pos.x * (1 - (i/38.0)) + m_To.x * (i / 38.0);
Points[i].y = m_Pos.y * (1 - (i/38.0)) + m_To.y * (i / 38.0);
if(i == 0 || i == 37 || i == 19) dbg_msg("CLight","(%d)\nPos(%f,%f)\nTo(%f,%f)\nPoint(%f,%f)",i,m_Pos.x,m_Pos.y,m_To.x,m_To.y,Points[i].x,Points[i].y);
}
prints:
[4c7cba40][CLight]: (0)
Pos(3376.000000,1808.000000)
To(3400.851563,1726.714111)
Point(3376.000000,1808.000000)
[4c7cba40][CLight]: (19)
Pos(3376.000000,1808.000000)
To(3400.851563,1726.714111)
Point(3388.425781,1767.357056)
[4c7cba40][CLight]: (37)
Pos(3376.000000,1808.000000)
To(3400.851563,1726.714111)
Point(3400.851563,1726.714111)
which looks fine but then my program doesn't work :D.
but your method works so thanks

How do I convert the 2 control points of a cubic curve to the single control point of a quadratic curve?

Having searched the web, I see various people in various forums alluding to approximating a cubic curve with a quadratic one. But I can't find the formula.
What I want is this:
input: startX, startY, control1X, control1Y, control2X, control2Y, endX, endY
output: startX, startY, controlX, controlY, endX, endY
Actually, since the starting and ending points will be the same, all I really need is...
input: startX, startY, control1X, control1Y, control2X, control2Y, endX, endY
output: controlX, controlY
As mentioned, going from 4 control points to 3 is normally going to be an approximation. There's only one case where it will be exact - when the cubic bezier curve is actually a degree-elevated quadratic bezier curve.
You can use the degree elevation equations to come up with an approximation. It's simple, and the results are usually pretty good.
Let's call the control points of the cubic Q0..Q3 and the control points of the quadratic P0..P2. Then for degree elevation, the equations are:
Q0 = P0
Q1 = 1/3 P0 + 2/3 P1
Q2 = 2/3 P1 + 1/3 P2
Q3 = P2
In your case you have Q0..Q3 and you're solving for P0..P2. There are two ways to compute P1 from the equations above:
P1 = 3/2 Q1 - 1/2 Q0
P1 = 3/2 Q2 - 1/2 Q3
If this is a degree-elevated cubic, then both equations will give the same answer for P1. Since it's likely not, your best bet is to average them. So,
P1 = -1/4 Q0 + 3/4 Q1 + 3/4 Q2 - 1/4 Q3
To translate to your terms:
controlX = -0.25*startX + .75*control1X + .75*control2X -0.25*endX
Y is computed similarly - the dimensions are independent, so this works for 3d (or n-d).
This will be an approximation. If you need a better approximation, one way to get it is by subdividing the initial cubic using the deCastlejau algorithm, and then degree-reduce each segment. If you need better continuity, there are other approximation methods that are less quick and dirty.
The cubic can have loops and cusps, which quadratic cannot have. This means that there are not simple solutions nearly never. If cubic is already a quadratic, then the simple solution exists. Normally you have to divide cubic to parts that are quadratics. And you have to decide what are the critical points for subdividing.
http://fontforge.org/bezier.html#ps2ttf says:
"Other sources I have read on the net suggest checking the cubic spline for points of inflection (which quadratic splines cannot have) and forcing breaks there. To my eye this actually makes the result worse, it uses more points and the approximation does not look as close as it does when ignoring the points of inflection. So I ignore them."
This is true, the inflection points (second derivatives of cubic) are not enough. But if you take into account also local extremes (min, max) which are the first derivatives of cubic function, and force breaks on those all, then the sub curves are all quadratic and can be presented by quadratics.
I tested the below functions, they work as expected (find all critical points of cubic and divides the cubic to down-elevated cubics). When those sub curves are drawn, the curve is exactly the same as original cubic, but for some reason, when sub curves are drawn as quadratics, the result is nearly right, but not exactly.
So this answer is not for strict help for the problem, but those functions provide a starting point for cubic to quadratic conversion.
To find both local extremes and inflection points, the following get_t_values_of_critical_points() should provide them. The
function compare_num(a,b) {
if (a < b) return -1;
if (a > b) return 1;
return 0;
}
function find_inflection_points(p1x,p1y,p2x,p2y,p3x,p3y,p4x,p4y)
{
var ax = -p1x + 3*p2x - 3*p3x + p4x;
var bx = 3*p1x - 6*p2x + 3*p3x;
var cx = -3*p1x + 3*p2x;
var ay = -p1y + 3*p2y - 3*p3y + p4y;
var by = 3*p1y - 6*p2y + 3*p3y;
var cy = -3*p1y + 3*p2y;
var a = 3*(ay*bx-ax*by);
var b = 3*(ay*cx-ax*cy);
var c = by*cx-bx*cy;
var r2 = b*b - 4*a*c;
var firstIfp = 0;
var secondIfp = 0;
if (r2>=0 && a!==0)
{
var r = Math.sqrt(r2);
firstIfp = (-b + r) / (2*a);
secondIfp = (-b - r) / (2*a);
if ((firstIfp>0 && firstIfp<1) && (secondIfp>0 && secondIfp<1))
{
if (firstIfp>secondIfp)
{
var tmp = firstIfp;
firstIfp = secondIfp;
secondIfp = tmp;
}
if (secondIfp-firstIfp >0.00001)
return [firstIfp, secondIfp];
else return [firstIfp];
}
else if (firstIfp>0 && firstIfp<1)
return [firstIfp];
else if (secondIfp>0 && secondIfp<1)
{
firstIfp = secondIfp;
return [firstIfp];
}
return [];
}
else return [];
}
function get_t_values_of_critical_points(p1x, p1y, c1x, c1y, c2x, c2y, p2x, p2y) {
var a = (c2x - 2 * c1x + p1x) - (p2x - 2 * c2x + c1x),
b = 2 * (c1x - p1x) - 2 * (c2x - c1x),
c = p1x - c1x,
t1 = (-b + Math.sqrt(b * b - 4 * a * c)) / 2 / a,
t2 = (-b - Math.sqrt(b * b - 4 * a * c)) / 2 / a,
tvalues=[];
Math.abs(t1) > "1e12" && (t1 = 0.5);
Math.abs(t2) > "1e12" && (t2 = 0.5);
if (t1 >= 0 && t1 <= 1 && tvalues.indexOf(t1)==-1) tvalues.push(t1)
if (t2 >= 0 && t2 <= 1 && tvalues.indexOf(t2)==-1) tvalues.push(t2);
a = (c2y - 2 * c1y + p1y) - (p2y - 2 * c2y + c1y);
b = 2 * (c1y - p1y) - 2 * (c2y - c1y);
c = p1y - c1y;
t1 = (-b + Math.sqrt(b * b - 4 * a * c)) / 2 / a;
t2 = (-b - Math.sqrt(b * b - 4 * a * c)) / 2 / a;
Math.abs(t1) > "1e12" && (t1 = 0.5);
Math.abs(t2) > "1e12" && (t2 = 0.5);
if (t1 >= 0 && t1 <= 1 && tvalues.indexOf(t1)==-1) tvalues.push(t1);
if (t2 >= 0 && t2 <= 1 && tvalues.indexOf(t2)==-1) tvalues.push(t2);
var inflectionpoints = find_inflection_points(p1x, p1y, c1x, c1y, c2x, c2y, p2x, p2y);
if (inflectionpoints[0]) tvalues.push(inflectionpoints[0]);
if (inflectionpoints[1]) tvalues.push(inflectionpoints[1]);
tvalues.sort(compare_num);
return tvalues;
};
And when you have those critical t values (which are from range 0-1), you can divide the cubic to parts:
function CPoint()
{
var arg = arguments;
if (arg.length==1)
{
this.X = arg[0].X;
this.Y = arg[0].Y;
}
else if (arg.length==2)
{
this.X = arg[0];
this.Y = arg[1];
}
}
function subdivide_cubic_to_cubics()
{
var arg = arguments;
if (arg.length!=9) return [];
var m_p1 = {X:arg[0], Y:arg[1]};
var m_p2 = {X:arg[2], Y:arg[3]};
var m_p3 = {X:arg[4], Y:arg[5]};
var m_p4 = {X:arg[6], Y:arg[7]};
var t = arg[8];
var p1p = new CPoint(m_p1.X + (m_p2.X - m_p1.X) * t,
m_p1.Y + (m_p2.Y - m_p1.Y) * t);
var p2p = new CPoint(m_p2.X + (m_p3.X - m_p2.X) * t,
m_p2.Y + (m_p3.Y - m_p2.Y) * t);
var p3p = new CPoint(m_p3.X + (m_p4.X - m_p3.X) * t,
m_p3.Y + (m_p4.Y - m_p3.Y) * t);
var p1d = new CPoint(p1p.X + (p2p.X - p1p.X) * t,
p1p.Y + (p2p.Y - p1p.Y) * t);
var p2d = new CPoint(p2p.X + (p3p.X - p2p.X) * t,
p2p.Y + (p3p.Y - p2p.Y) * t);
var p1t = new CPoint(p1d.X + (p2d.X - p1d.X) * t,
p1d.Y + (p2d.Y - p1d.Y) * t);
return [[m_p1.X, m_p1.Y, p1p.X, p1p.Y, p1d.X, p1d.Y, p1t.X, p1t.Y],
[p1t.X, p1t.Y, p2d.X, p2d.Y, p3p.X, p3p.Y, m_p4.X, m_p4.Y]];
}
subdivide_cubic_to_cubics() in above code divides an original cubic curve to two parts by the value t. Because get_t_values_of_critical_points() returns t values as an array sorted by t value, you can easily traverse all t values and get the corresponding sub curve. When you have those divided curves, you have to divide the 2nd sub curve by the next t value.
When all splitting is proceeded, you have the control points of all sub curves. Now there are left only the cubic control point conversion to quadratic. Because all sub curves are now down-elevated cubics, the corresponding quadratic control points are easy to calculate. The first and last of quadratic control points are the same as cubic's (sub curve) first and last control point and the middle one is found in the point, where lines P1-P2 and P4-P3 crosses.
Conventions/terminology
Cubic defined by: P1/2 - anchor points, C1/C2 control points
|x| is the euclidean norm of x
mid-point approx of cubic: a quad that shares the same anchors with the cubic and has the control point at C = (3·C2 - P2 + 3·C1 - P1)/4
Algorithm
pick an absolute precision (prec)
Compute the Tdiv as the root of (cubic) equation sqrt(3)/18 · |P2 - 3·C2 + 3·C1 - P1|/2 · Tdiv ^ 3 = prec
if Tdiv < 0.5 divide the cubic at Tdiv. First segment [0..Tdiv] can be approximated with by a quadratic, with a defect less than prec, by the mid-point approximation. Repeat from step 2 with the second resulted segment (corresponding to 1-Tdiv)
0.5<=Tdiv<1 - simply divide the cubic in two. The two halves can be approximated by the mid-point approximation
Tdiv>=1 - the entire cubic can be approximated by the mid-point approximation
The "magic formula" at step 2 is demonstrated (with interactive examples) on this page.
Another derivation of tfinniga's answer:
First see Wikipedia Bezier curve
for the formulas for quadratic and cubic Bezier curves (also nice animations):
Q(t) = (1-t)^2 P0 + 2 (1-t) t Q + t^2 P3
P(t) + (1-t)^3 P0 + 3 (1-t)^2 t P1 + 3 (1-t) t^2 P2 + t^3 P3
Require these to match at the middle, t = 1/2:
(P0 + 2 Q + P3) / 4 = (P0 + 3 P1 + 3 P2 + P3) / 8
=> Q = P1 + P2 - (P0 + P1 + P2 + P3) / 4
(Q written like this has a geometric interpretation:
Pmid = middle of P0 P1 P2 P3
P12mid = midway between P1 and P2
draw a line from Pmid to P12mid, and that far again: you're at Q.
Hope this makes sense -- draw a couple of examples.)
In general, you'll have to use multiple quadratic curves - many cases of cubic curves can't be even vaguely approximated with a single quadratic curve.
There is a good article discussing the problem, and a number of ways to solve it, at http://www.timotheegroleau.com/Flash/articles/cubic_bezier_in_flash.htm (including interactive demonstrations).
I should note that Adrian's solution is great for single cubics, but when the cubics are segments of a smooth cubic spline, then using his midpoint approximation method causes slope continuity at the nodes of the segments to be lost. So the method described at http://fontforge.org/bezier.html#ps2ttf is much better if you are working with font glyphs or for any other reason you want to retain the smoothness of the curve (which is most probably the case).
Even though this is an old question, many people like me will see it in search results, so I'm posting this here.
I would probably draw a series of curves instead of trying to draw one curve using a different alg. Sort of like drawing two half circles to make up a whole circle.
Try looking for opensource Postcript font to Truetype font converters. I'm sure they have it. Postscript uses cubic bezier curves, whereas Truetype uses quadratic bezier curves. Good luck.

Resources