I have a 4x4 grid full of letters. How can I calculate all possible routes from any point to any point that consist of 2 to 10 points?
All points within a route must be connected to another point within the same route vertically, horizontally or diagonally. For example you can go from A to B, A to E and A to F but not A to C.
Each point can be used only once in a route.
Here's an example of 25 possible permutations:
+---+---+---+---+
| A | B | C | D |
+---+---+---+---+
| E | F | G | H |
+---+---+---+---+
| I | J | K | L |
+---+---+---+---+
| M | N | O | P |
+---+---+---+---+
- AB
- ABC
- ABCD
- ABCDH
- ABCDHG
- ABCDHGF
- ABCDHGFE
- ABCDHGFEI
- ABCDHGFEIJ
- AE
- AEI
- AEIM
- AEIMN
- AEIMNJ
- AEIMNJF
- AIEMNJFB
- AIEMNJFBC
- AIEMNJFBCG
- AFKP
- PONM
- FGKL
- NJFB
- MNJGD
Now I should clear the question. I'm not asking HOW to get all the permutations. I'm asking what is the total amount of the possible permutations (i.e. an integer) and how to calculate it.
As mentioned in the comments the question can be answered with basic DFS in java starting at top left at (0,0)
EDIT: I added if(count(visited)>10) return; for the constraint
static int count=0;
static int count(boolean[][] b){
int r = 0;
for(int i=0;i<b.length;i++){
for(int j=0;j<b[0].length;j++){
if(b[i][j]) r++;
}
}
return r;
}
static boolean[][] copy(boolean[][] arr){
boolean [][] r = new boolean[arr.length][];
for(int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
r[i] = arr[i].clone();
return r;
}
static void dfs(int i, int j,boolean[][] visited) {
visited[i][j] = true;
if(count(visited)>10) return;
count++;
for (int k=-1;k<2;k++) {
for (int l=-1;l<2;l++) {
int r = i+k;
int c = j+l;
if (r>-1 && r<visited.length && c>-1 && c<visited.length && !visited[r][c]){
dfs(r,c,copy(visited));
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
boolean[][] visited = {
{false, false, false, false},
{false, false, false, false},
{false, false, false, false},
{false, false, false, false}
};
// dfs(row,column,initialize all to false)
dfs(0,0,visited);
System.out.println(count-1);
}
The above script just goes through each permutation and increments count every time since this includes the starting point (for example (0,0)) i have at the bottom count-1
Output: 105837 (edited from my incorrect original 1012519)
for 2x2 starting at same place i get 15. Which you can see from running
static int count=0;
static int count(boolean[][] b){
int r = 0;
for(int i=0;i<b.length;i++){
for(int j=0;j<b[0].length;j++){
if(b[i][j]) r++;
}
}
return r;
}
static boolean[][] copy(boolean[][] arr){
boolean [][] r = new boolean[arr.length][];
for(int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
r[i] = arr[i].clone();
return r;
}
static void dfs(int i, int j,boolean[][] visited,String str) {
visited[i][j] = true;
if (count(visited)>10) return;
count++;
str+="("+i+","+j+")";
System.out.println(str+": "+count);
for (int k=-1;k<2;k++) {
for (int l=-1;l<2;l++) {
int r = i+k;
int c = j+l;
if (r>-1 && r<visited.length && c>-1 && c<visited.length && !visited[r][c]){
dfs(r,c,copy(visited),str);
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
boolean[][] visited = {
{false, false},
{false, false}
};
dfs(0,0,visited,"");
// "count-1" to account for the starting position
System.out.println(count-1);
}
Output:
(0,0): 1
(0,0)(0,1): 2
(0,0)(0,1)(1,0): 3
(0,0)(0,1)(1,0)(1,1): 4
(0,0)(0,1)(1,1): 5
(0,0)(0,1)(1,1)(1,0): 6
(0,0)(1,0): 7
(0,0)(1,0)(0,1): 8
(0,0)(1,0)(0,1)(1,1): 9
(0,0)(1,0)(1,1): 10
(0,0)(1,0)(1,1)(0,1): 11
(0,0)(1,1): 12
(0,0)(1,1)(0,1): 13
(0,0)(1,1)(0,1)(1,0): 14
(0,0)(1,1)(1,0): 15
(0,0)(1,1)(1,0)(0,1): 16
15
the same script with 4x4 instead last 6 lines of output are:
(0,0)(1,1)(2,2)(3,3)(3,2)(3,1)(3,0)(2,1)(1,2)(0,3): 105834
(0,0)(1,1)(2,2)(3,3)(3,2)(3,1)(3,0)(2,1)(1,2)(1,3): 105835
(0,0)(1,1)(2,2)(3,3)(3,2)(3,1)(3,0)(2,1)(1,2)(2,3): 105836
(0,0)(1,1)(2,2)(3,3)(3,2)(3,1)(3,0)(2,1)(2,0): 105837
(0,0)(1,1)(2,2)(3,3)(3,2)(3,1)(3,0)(2,1)(2,0)(1,0): 105838
105837
The requirements for your problem are complex enough that I doubt there is a simple mathematical calculation--at least I cannot think of one. Here is recursive Python code to find your path count.
SIDE = 4 # Length of side of grid
MAXLEN = 10 # Maximum path length allowed
SIDE2 = SIDE + 2
DIRS = ( # offsets for directions
-1 * SIDE2 - 1, # up & left
-1 * SIDE2 + 0, # up
-1 * SIDE2 + 1, # up & right
0 * SIDE2 - 1, # left
0 * SIDE2 + 1, # right
1 * SIDE2 - 1, # down & left
1 * SIDE2 + 0, # down
1 * SIDE2 + 1, # down & right
)
def countpaths(loc, pathlen):
"""Return the number of paths starting at the point indicated by
parameter loc of length at most parameter pathlen, not repeating
points or using points marked False in global variable isfree[]."""
global isfree
pathcnt = 1 # count sub-path of just this one point
if pathlen > 1:
isfree[loc] = False
for dir in DIRS:
if isfree[loc + dir]:
pathcnt += countpaths(loc + dir, pathlen - 1)
isfree[loc] = True
return pathcnt
# Init global boolean array variable to flag which points are still available
isfree = [1 <= r <= SIDE and 1 <= c <= SIDE
for r in range(SIDE2) for c in range(SIDE2)]
# Use the symmetries of the square grid to find count of paths in grid
allpathcnt = 0
for r in range(1, (SIDE + 1) // 2 + 1): # do a triangular slice of the grid
for c in range(1, r + 1):
# Find the number of similar (by symmetry) points in the grid
if 2 * r - 1 == SIDE:
if r == c:
sym = 1 # center of entire grid
else:
sym = 4 # center of column
else:
if r == c:
sym = 4 # diagonal
else:
sym = 8 # other
# Add paths starting at this kind of point removing those of length 1
allpathcnt += sym * (countpaths(r * SIDE2 + c, MAXLEN) - 1)
print('Total path count is ' + str(allpathcnt))
This code takes into account the requirement that paths have lengths between 2 and 10 by limiting the path length to 10 and removing the paths of length 1. The requirement that points are not repeated is fulfilled by using array isfree[] to note which points are still free (True) and which are already used or should not be used (False).
Python is a somewhat slow language, so I increased speed by moving some calculations out of the inner recursions. I used a surrounding border of always-False points around your 4x4 grid, removing the need for explicit bounds checking. I used a one-dimensional list rather than two-dimensional and pre-coded the offsets from each cell to neighboring cells in constant DIRS (for "directions"). I used a final optimization by not using all 16 starting points. There are 4 corner points like A, 8 side points like B, and 4 center points like F, so I just found the numbers of paths from A, B, and F and calculated what the total would be for starting at all points.
This version of my code can handle any size square grid and maximum path length. I checked my code by varying SIDE and MAXLEN separately to 1, 2, and 3, and checking the results for each point by hand.
The final answer I get is
1626144
I was interested to note that the section of code taking the most space is the part that determines the symmetries of a point in the grid. I have found other, more concise ways to do this, but they are all much less readable.
Related
Is it possible to limit a value in a given range, between min and max, using only arithmetic? That is, + - x / and %?
I am not able to use functions such as min, max nor IF-statements.
Let's assume I have a range of [1850, 1880], for any values < 1850, it should display 1850. For values > 1880, 1880 should be displayed. It would also be acceptable if only 1850 was displayed outside the range.
I tried:
x = (((x - xmax) % (xmax - xmin)) + (xmax - xmin)) % (xmax - xmin) + xmin
but it gives different values in the middle of the range for values lower than xmin.
If you know the size of the integer type, you can extract its sign bit (assuming two's complement) using integer division:
// Example in C
int sign_bit(int s)
{
// cast to unsigned (important)
unsigned u = (unsigned)s;
// number of bits in int
// if your integer size is fixed, this is just a constant
static const unsigned b = sizeof(int) * 8;
// pow(2, b - 1)
// again, a constant which can be pre-computed
static const unsigned p = 1 << (b - 1);
// use integer division to get top bit
return (int)(u / p);
}
This returns 1 if s < 0 and 0 otherwise; it can be used to calculate the absolute value:
int abs_arith(int v)
{
// sign bit
int b = sign_bit(v);
// actual sign (+1 / -1)
int s = 1 - 2 * b;
// sign(v) * v = abs(v)
return s * v;
}
The desired function looks like this:
It is useful to first shift the minimum to zero:
This function form can be computed as a sum of the two shifted absolute value functions below:
However the resultant function is scaled by a factor of 2; shifting to zero helps here because we only need to divide by 2, and shift back to the original minimum:
// Example in C
int clamp_minmax(int val, int min, int max)
{
// range length
int range = max - min;
// shift minimum to zero
val = val - min;
// blue function
int blue = abs_arith(val);
// green function
int green = range - abs_arith(val - range);
// add and divide by 2
val = (blue + green) / 2;
// shift to original minimum
return val + min;
}
This solution, although satisfies the requirements of the problem, is limited to signed integer types (and languages which allow integer overflow - I'm unsure of how this could be overcome in e.g. Java).
I found this while messing around in... excel. It only works for strictly positive integers. Although this is not more restrictive as the answer by meowgoesthedog because he also effectivly halves the integer space by dividing by two at the end. It doesn't use mod.
//A = 1 if x <= min
//A = 0 if x >= min
A = 1-(min-min/x)/min
//B = 0 if x <= max
//B = 1 if x > max
B = (max-max/x)/max
x = A*min + (1-A)*(1-B)*x + B*max
I found this solution in Python:
A = -1 # Minimum value
B = +1 # Maximum value
x = min(max(x, A), B)
It's about this dynamic programming challenge.
If you have a hard time to understand the Problem then see also on AbhishekVermaIIT's post
Basically, you get as input an array B and you construct array A. Fo this array A you need the maximum possible sum with absolute(A[i] - A[i-1]), for i = 1 to N. How to construct array A? --> You can choose for every element A[i] in array A either the values 1 or B[i]. (As you will deduce from the problem description any other value between these two values doesn't make any sense.)
And I came up with this recursive Java solution (without memoization):
static int costHelper(int[] arr, int i) {
if (i < 1) return 0;
int q = max(abs(1 - arr[i-1]) + costHelper(arr, i-1) , abs(arr[i] - arr[i-1]) + costHelper(arr, i-1));
int[] arr1 = new int[i];
for (int j = 0; j < arr1.length-1; j++) {
arr1[j] = arr[j];
}
arr1[i-1] = 1;
int r = max(abs(1 - 1) + costHelper(arr1, i-1) , abs(arr[i] - 1) + costHelper(arr1, i-1));
return max(q , r);
}
static int cost(int[] arr) {
return costHelper(arr, arr.length-1);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] arr = {55, 68, 31, 80, 57, 18, 34, 28, 76, 55};
int result = cost(arr);
System.out.println(result);
}
Basically, I start at the end of the array and check what is maximizing the sum of the last element minus last element - 1. But I have 4 cases:
(1 - arr[i-1])
(arr[i] - arr[i-1])
(1 - 1) // I know, it is not necessary.
(arr[i] -1)
For the 3rd or 4th case I construct a new array one element smaller in size than the input array and with a 1 as the last element.
Now, the result of arr = 55 68 31 80 57 18 34 28 76 55 according to Hackerrank should be 508. But I get 564.
Since it has to be 508 I guess the array should be 1 68 1 80 1 1 34 1 76 1.
For other arrays I get the right answer. For example:
79 6 40 68 68 16 40 63 93 49 91 --> 642 (OK)
100 2 100 2 100 --> 396 (OK)
I don't understand what is wrong with this algorithm.
I'm not sure exactly what's happening with your particular solution but I suspect it might be that the recursive function only has one dimension, i, since we need a way to identify the best previous solution, f(i-1), both if B_(i-1) was chosen and if 1 was chosen at that point, so we can choose the best among them vis-a-vis f(i). (It might help if you could add a description of your algorithm in words.)
Let's look at the brute-force dynamic program: let m[i][j1] represent the best sum-of-abs-diff in A[0..i] when A_i is j1. Then, generally:
m[i][j1] = max(abs(j1 - j0) + m[i-1][j0])
for j0 in [1..B_(i-1)] and j1 in [1..B_i]
Python code:
def cost(arr):
if len(arr) == 1:
return 0
m = [[float('-inf')]*101 for i in xrange(len(arr))]
for i in xrange(1, len(arr)):
for j0 in xrange(1, arr[i-1] + 1):
for j1 in xrange(1, arr[i] + 1):
m[i][j1] = max(m[i][j1], abs(j1 - j0) + (m[i-1][j0] if i > 1 else 0))
return max(m[len(arr) - 1])
That works but times out since we are looping potentially 100*100*10^5 iterations.
I haven't thought through the proof for it, but, as you suggest, apparently we can choose only from either 1 or B_i for each A_i for an optimal solution. This allows us to choose between those directly in a significantly more efficient solution that won't time out:
def cost(arr):
if len(arr) == 1:
return 0
m = [[float('-inf')]*2 for i in xrange(len(arr))]
for i in xrange(1, len(arr)):
for j0 in [1, arr[i-1]]:
for j1 in [1, arr[i]]:
a_i = 0 if j1 == 1 else 1
b_i = 0 if j0 == 1 else 1
m[i][a_i] = max(m[i][a_i], abs(j1 - j0) + (m[i-1][b_i] if i > 1 else 0))
return max(m[len(arr) - 1])
This is a bottom-up tabulation but we could easily convert it to a recursive one using the same idea.
Here is the javascript code with memoization-
function cost(B,n,val) {
if(n==-1){
return 0;
}
let prev1=0,prev2=0;
if(n!=0){
if(dp[n-1][0]==-1)
dp[n-1][0] = cost(B,n-1,1);
if(dp[n-1][1]==-1)
dp[n-1][1] = cost(B,n-1,B[n]);
prev1=dp[n-1][0];
prev2=dp[n-1][1];
}
prev1 = prev1 + Math.abs(val-1);
prev2 = prev2+ Math.abs(val-B[n]);
return Math.max(prev1,prev2);
}
where B->given array,n->total length,val-> 1 or B[n], value considered by the calling function.
Initial call -> Math.max(cost(B,n-2,1),cost(B,n-2,B[n-1]));
BTW, this took me around 3hrs, rather could have easily done with iteration method. :p
//dp[][0] is when a[i]=b[i]
dp[i][0]=max((dp[i-1][0]+abs(b[i]-b[i-1])),(dp[i-1][1]+abs(b[i]-1)));
dp[i][1]=max((dp[i-1][1]+abs(1-1)),(dp[i-1][0]+abs(b[i-1]-1)));
Initially all the elements in dp have the value of 0.
We know that we will get the answer if at any i the value is b[i] or 1. So the final answer is :
max(dp[n-1][0],dp[n-1][1])
dp[i][0] signifies a[i]=b[i] and dp[i][1] signifies a[i]=1.
So at every i we want the maximum of [i-1][0] (previous element is b[i-1]) or [i-1][1] (previous element is 1)
Given XOR & SUM of two numbers. How to find the numbers?
For example, x = a+b, y = a^b; if x,y are given, how to get a, b?
And if can't, give the reason.
This cannot be done reliably. A single counter-example is enough to destroy any theory and, in your case, that example is 0, 100 and 4, 96. Both of these sum to 100 and xor to 100 as well:
0 = 0000 0000 4 = 0000 0100
100 = 0110 0100 96 = 0110 0000
---- ---- ---- ----
xor 0110 0100 = 100 xor 0110 0100 = 100
Hence given a sum of 100 and an xor of 100, you cannot know which of the possibilities generated that situation.
For what it's worth, this program checks the possibilities with just the numbers 0..255:
#include <stdio.h>
static void output (unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
printf ("%u:%u = %u %u\n", a+b, a^b, a, b);
}
int main (void) {
unsigned int limit = 256;
unsigned int a, b;
output (0, 0);
for (b = 1; b != limit; b++)
output (0, b);
for (a = 1; a != limit; a++)
for (b = 1; b != limit; b++)
output (a, b);
return 0;
}
You can then take that output and massage it to give you all the repeated possibilities:
testprog | sed 's/ =.*$//' | sort | uniq -c | grep -v ' 1 ' | sort -k1 -n -r
which gives:
255 255:255
128 383:127
128 319:191
128 287:223
128 271:239
128 263:247
:
and so on.
Even in that reduced set, there are quite a few combinations which generate the same sum and xor, the worst being the large number of possibilities that generate a sum/xor of 255/255, which are:
255:255 = 0 255
255:255 = 1 254
255:255 = 2 253
255:255 = <n> <255-n>, for n = 3 thru 255 inclusive
It has already been shown that it can't be done, but here are two further reasons why.
For the (rather large) subset of a's and b's (a & b) == 0, you have a + b == (a ^ b) (because there can be no carries) (the reverse implication does not hold). In such a case, you can, for each bit that is 1 in the sum, choose which one of a or b contributed that bit. Obviously this subset does not cover the entire input, but it at least proves that it can't be done in general.
Furthermore, there exist many pairs of (x, y) such that there is no solution to a + b == x && (a ^ b) == y, for example (there are more than just these) all pairs (x, y) where ((x ^ y) & 1) == 1 (ie one is odd and the other is even), because the lowest bit of the xor and the sum are equal (the lowest bit has no carry-in). By a simple counting-argument, that must mean that at least some pairs (x, y) must have multiple solutions: clearly all pairs of (a, b) have some pair of (x, y) associated with them, so if not all pairs of (x, y) can be used, some other pairs (x, y) must be shared.
Here is the solution to get all such pairs
Logic:
let the numbers be a and b, we know
s = a + b
x = a ^ b
therefore
x = (s-b) ^ b
Since we know x and we know s, so for all ints going from 0 to s - just check if this last equation is satisfied
here is the code for this
public List<Pair<Integer>> pairs(int s, int x) {
List<Pair<Integer>> pairs = new ArrayList<Pair<Integer>>();
for (int i = 0; i <= s; i++) {
int calc = (s - i) ^ i;
if (calc == x) {
pairs.add(new Pair<Integer>(i, s - i));
}
}
return pairs;
}
Class pair is defined as
class Pair<T> {
T a;
T b;
public String toString() {
return a.toString() + "," + b.toString();
}
public Pair(T a, T b) {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
}
Code to test this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Pair<Integer>> pairs = new Test().pairs(100,100);
for (Pair<Integer> p : pairs) {
System.out.println(p);
}
}
Output:
0,100
4,96
32,68
36,64
64,36
68,32
96,4
100,0
if you have a , b the sum = a+b = (a^b) + (a&b)*2 this equation may be useful for you
I have 2 tables of values and want to scale the first one so that it matches the 2nd one as good as possible. Both have the same length. If both are drawn as graphs in a diagram they should be as close to each other as possible. But I do not want quadratic, but simple linear weights.
My problem is, that I have no idea how to actually compute the best scaling factor because of the Abs function.
Some pseudocode:
//given:
float[] table1= ...;
float[] table2= ...;
//wanted:
float factor= ???; // I have no idea how to compute this
float remainingDifference=0;
for(int i=0; i<length; i++)
{
float scaledValue=table1[i] * factor;
//Sum up the differences. I use the Abs function because negative differences are differences too.
remainingDifference += Abs(scaledValue - table2[i]);
}
I want to compute the scaling factor so that the remainingDifference is minimal.
Simple linear weights is hard like you said.
a_n = first sequence
b_n = second sequence
c = scaling factor
Your residual function is (sums are from i=1 to N, the number of points):
SUM( |a_i - c*b_i| )
Taking the derivative with respect to c yields:
d/dc SUM( |a_i - c*b_i| )
= SUM( b_i * (a_i - c*b_i)/|a_i - c*b_i| )
Setting to 0 and solving for c is hard. I don't think there's an analytic way of doing that. You may want to try https://math.stackexchange.com/ to see if they have any bright ideas.
However if you work with quadratic weights, it becomes significantly simpler:
d/dc SUM( (a_i - c*b_i)^2 )
= SUM( 2*(a_i - c*b_i)* -c )
= -2c * SUM( a_i - c*b_i ) = 0
=> SUM(a_i) - c*SUM(b_i) = 0
=> c = SUM(a_i) / SUM(b_i)
I strongly suggest the latter approach if you can.
I would suggest trying some sort of variant on Newton Raphson.
Construct a function Diff(k) that looks at the difference in area between your two graphs between fixed markers A and B.
mathematically I guess it would be integral ( x = A to B ){ f(x) - k * g(x) }dx
anyway realistically you could just subtract the values,
like if you range from X = -10 to 10, and you have a data point for f(i) and g(i) on each integer i in [-10, 10], (ie 21 datapoints )
then you just sum( i = -10 to 10 ){ f(i) - k * g(i) }
basically you would expect this function to look like a parabola -- there will be an optimum k, and deviating slightly from it in either direction will increase the overall area difference
and the bigger the difference, you would expect the bigger the gap
so, this should be a pretty smooth function ( if you have a lot of data points )
so you want to minimise Diff(k)
so you want to find whether derivative ie d/dk Diff(k) = 0
so just do Newton Raphson on this new function D'(k)
kick it off at k=1 and it should zone in on a solution pretty fast
that's probably going to give you an optimal computation time
if you want something simpler, just start with some k1 and k2 that are either side of 0
so say Diff(1.5) = -3 and Diff(2.9) = 7
so then you would pick a k say 3/10 of the way (10 = 7 - -3) between 1.5 and 2.9
and depending on whether that yields a positive or negative value, use it as the new k1 or k2, rinse and repeat
In case anyone stumbles upon this in the future, here is some code (c++)
The trick is to first sort the samples by the scaling factor that would result in the best fit for the 2 samples each. Then start at both ends iterate to the factor that results in the minimum absolute deviation (L1-norm).
Everything except for the sort has a linear run time => Runtime is O(n*log n)
/*
* Find x so that the sum over std::abs(pA[i]-pB[i]*x) from i=0 to (n-1) is minimal
* Then return x
*/
float linearFit(const float* pA, const float* pB, int n)
{
/*
* Algebraic solution is not possible for the general case
* => iterative algorithm
*/
if (n < 0)
throw "linearFit has invalid argument: expected n >= 0";
if (n == 0)
return 0;//If there is nothing to fit, any factor is a perfect fit (sum is always 0)
if (n == 1)
return pA[0] / pB[0];//return x so that pA[0] = pB[0]*x
//If you don't like this , use a std::vector :P
std::unique_ptr<float[]> targetValues_(new float[n]);
std::unique_ptr<int[]> indices_(new int[n]);
//Get proper pointers:
float* targetValues = targetValues_.get();//The value for x that would cause pA[i] = pB[i]*x
int* indices = indices_.get(); //Indices of useful (not nan and not infinity) target values
//The code above guarantees n > 1, so it is safe to get these pointers:
int m = 0;//Number of useful target values
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
float a = pA[i];
float b = pB[i];
float targetValue = a / b;
targetValues[i] = targetValue;
if (std::isfinite(targetValue))
{
indices[m++] = i;
}
}
if (m <= 0)
return 0;
if (m == 1)
return targetValues[indices[0]];//If there is only one target value, then it has to be the best one.
//sort the indices by target value
std::sort(indices, indices + m, [&](int ia, int ib){
return targetValues[ia] < targetValues[ib];
});
//Start from the extremes and meet at the optimal solution somewhere in the middle:
int l = 0;
int r = m - 1;
// m >= 2 is guaranteed => l > r
float penaltyFactorL = std::abs(pB[indices[l]]);
float penaltyFactorR = std::abs(pB[indices[r]]);
while (l < r)
{
if (l == r - 1 && penaltyFactorL == penaltyFactorR)
{
break;
}
if (penaltyFactorL < penaltyFactorR)
{
l++;
if (l < r)
{
penaltyFactorL += std::abs(pB[indices[l]]);
}
}
else
{
r--;
if (l < r)
{
penaltyFactorR += std::abs(pB[indices[r]]);
}
}
}
//return the best target value
if (l == r)
return targetValues[indices[l]];
else
return (targetValues[indices[l]] + targetValues[indices[r]])*0.5;
}
How can I programmatically detect whether or not two triangles touch each other, given their vertices on a 2D coordinate plane? This includes touching points or edges, as well as if one triangle is completely inside the other one.
You can prove that the two triangles do not collide by finding an edge (out of the total 6 edges that make up the two triangles) that acts as a separating line where all the vertices of one triangle lie on one side and the vertices of the other triangle lie on the other side. If you can find such an edge then it means that the triangles do not intersect otherwise the triangles are colliding.
Here is a Matlab implementation of the triangle collision function. You can find the theory of the sameside function here: http://www.blackpawn.com/texts/pointinpoly/default.html
function flag = triangle_intersection(P1, P2)
% triangle_test : returns true if the triangles overlap and false otherwise
% P1, P2: a 3 by 2 array (each), describing the vertices of a triangle,
% the first column corresponds to the x coordinates while the second column
% corresponds to the y coordinates
function flag = sameside(p1,p2,a,b)
% sameside : returns true if the p1,p1 lie on same sides of the
% edge ab and false otherwise
p1(3) = 0; p2(3) = 0; a(3) = 0; b(3) = 0;
cp1 = cross(b-a, p1-a);
cp2 = cross(b-a, p2-a);
if(dot(cp1, cp2) >= 0)
flag = true;
else
flag = false;
end
end
% Repeat the vertices for the loop
P1(4:5,:) = P1(1:2,:);
P2(4:5,:) = P2(1:2,:);
flag = true;
% Testing all the edges of P1
for i=1:3
if(~sameside(P1(i,:), P2(1,:), P1(i+1,:), P1(i+2,:)) ...
&& sameside(P2(1,:), P2(2,:), P1(i+1,:), P1(i+2,:)) ...
&& sameside(P2(2,:), P2(3,:), P1(i+1,:), P1(i+2,:)))
flag = false; return;
end
end
% Testing all the edges of P2
for i=1:3
if(~sameside(P2(i,:), P1(1,:), P2(i+1,:), P2(i+2,:)) ...
&& sameside(P1(1,:), P1(2,:), P2(i+1,:), P2(i+2,:)) ...
&& sameside(P1(2,:), P1(3,:), P2(i+1,:), P2(i+2,:)))
flag = false; return;
end
end
end
In short, Hassan's answer is fastest.
https://jsfiddle.net/eyal/gxw3632c/
This is the fastest code in javascript:
// check that all points of the other triangle are on the same side of the triangle after mapping to barycentric coordinates.
// returns true if all points are outside on the same side
var cross2 = function(points, triangle) {
var pa = points.a;
var pb = points.b;
var pc = points.c;
var p0 = triangle.a;
var p1 = triangle.b;
var p2 = triangle.c;
var dXa = pa.x - p2.x;
var dYa = pa.y - p2.y;
var dXb = pb.x - p2.x;
var dYb = pb.y - p2.y;
var dXc = pc.x - p2.x;
var dYc = pc.y - p2.y;
var dX21 = p2.x - p1.x;
var dY12 = p1.y - p2.y;
var D = dY12 * (p0.x - p2.x) + dX21 * (p0.y - p2.y);
var sa = dY12 * dXa + dX21 * dYa;
var sb = dY12 * dXb + dX21 * dYb;
var sc = dY12 * dXc + dX21 * dYc;
var ta = (p2.y - p0.y) * dXa + (p0.x - p2.x) * dYa;
var tb = (p2.y - p0.y) * dXb + (p0.x - p2.x) * dYb;
var tc = (p2.y - p0.y) * dXc + (p0.x - p2.x) * dYc;
if (D < 0) return ((sa >= 0 && sb >= 0 && sc >= 0) ||
(ta >= 0 && tb >= 0 && tc >= 0) ||
(sa+ta <= D && sb+tb <= D && sc+tc <= D));
return ((sa <= 0 && sb <= 0 && sc <= 0) ||
(ta <= 0 && tb <= 0 && tc <= 0) ||
(sa+ta >= D && sb+tb >= D && sc+tc >= D));
}
var trianglesIntersect4 = function(t0, t1) {
return !(cross2(t0,t1) ||
cross2(t1,t0));
}
I wrote the above fiddle to test a few different techniques and compare the speed. All the techniques are based on some combination of three different tools:
Barycentric point-in-triangle test: Convert a point from x,y space to u,v space where u,v are two sides of the triangle. Then test if the point is inside the triangle (0,0) (0,1) (1,0), which is easy.
Same-side point-in-triangle test: This test tells you if an angle is more or less than 180 degrees. If the triangle is a,b,c and your point is p, you check if the angle pab and bac are both more or both less than 180. You need to do this for ab, bc, and ca. If any are true, the point is outside. This test is slower than barycentric for one point.
Line segment intersection: Check if the line segment a,b intersects line segment c,d. To do that, you find the point where the two lines cross and then check that those lines are in the bounding box of a,b and b,c. This is about as fast as Barycentric.
Those are the tools. Now to find out if triangles intersect, there are 3 ways that I tested:
8 line intersection and 2 point-in-triangle: You only need 8 line intersection and not all 9 because there can't be just 1 intersection. After that, you need 2 point-in-triangle in case 1 triangle is entirely inside the other.
6 line intersection and 4 point-in-triangle: If you draw it out, you can see that you can completely ignore one side of one of the triangles for line intersection and then just do all the other triangles points for point-in-triangle. Because line intersection and barycentric are about the same speed, this isn't much better than #1. But if you used same-side, it will be faster because same side point-in-triangle is slower.
9 same-side point-in-triangle tests: You can use either barycentric or same side. For either, you modify the point-in-triangle to test 3 points at the same time and you don't want to just test that they are all three outside the triangle, you need to test that they are all 3 outside on the same side. Because we're re-using a lot of information, we can save time in calculations. Again, barycentric seems slightly faster than same side here, too.
Use Line Line intersection
https://www.topcoder.com/community/data-science/data-science-tutorials/geometry-concepts-line-intersection-and-its-applications/#line_line_intersection
Also consider the possibility that some vertex might be touching one of the sides of the other triangle.
http://www.blackpawn.com/texts/pointinpoly/default.html
function SameSide(p1,p2, a,b)
cp1 = CrossProduct(b-a, p1-a)
cp2 = CrossProduct(b-a, p2-a)
if DotProduct(cp1, cp2) >= 0 then return true
else return false
function PointInTriangle(p, a,b,c)
if SameSide(p,a, b,c) and SameSide(p,b, a,c)
and SameSide(p,c, a,b) then return true
else return false
Or look at this link and scroll down
http://compsci.ca/v3/viewtopic.php?t=6034