I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but here goes...
Short version: I'm trying to compute the orientation of a triangle on a plane, formed by the intersection of 3 edges, without explicitly computing the intersection points.
Long version: I need to triangulate a PSLG on a triangle in 3D. The vertices of the PSLG are defined by the intersections of line segments with the plane through the triangle, and are guaranteed to lie within the triangle. Assuming I had the intersection points, I could project to 2D and use a point-line-side (or triangle signed area) test to determine the orientation of a triangle between any 3 intersection points.
The problem is I can't explicitly compute the intersection points because of the floating-point error that accumulates when I find the line-plane intersection. To figure out if the line segments strike the triangle in the first place, I'm using some freely available robust geometric predicates, which give the sign of the volume of a tetrahedron, or equivalently which side of a plane a point lies on. I can determine if the line segment endpoints are on opposite sides of the plane through the triangle, then form tetrahedra between the line segment and each edge of the triangle to determine whether the intersection point lies within the triangle.
Since I can't explicitly compute the intersection points, I'm wondering if there is a way to express the same 2D orient calculation in 3D using only the original points. If there are 3 edges striking the triangle that gives me 9 points in total to play with. Assuming what I'm asking is even possible (using only the 3D orient tests), then I'm guessing that I'll need to form some subset of all the possible tetrahedra between those 9 points. I'm having difficultly even visualizing this, let alone distilling it into a formula or code. I can't even google this because I don't know what the industry standard terminology might be for this type of problem.
Any ideas how to proceed with this? Thanks. Perhaps I should ask MathOverflow as well...
EDIT: After reading some of the comments, one thing that occurs to me... Perhaps if I could fit non-overlapping tetrahedra between the 3 line segments, then the orientation of any one of those that crossed the plane would be the answer I'm looking for. Other than when the edges enclose a simple triangular prism, I'm not sure this sub-problem is solvable either.
EDIT: The requested image.
I am answering this on both MO & SO, expanding the comments I made on MO.
My sense is that no computational trick with signed tetrahedra volumes will avoid the precision issues that are your main concern. This is because, if you have tightly twisted segments, the orientation of the triangle depends on the precise positioning of the cutting plane.
[image removed; see below]
In the above example, the upper plane crosses the segments in the order (a,b,c) [ccw from above]: (red,blue,green), while the lower plane crosses in the reverse order (c,b,a): (green,blue,red). The height
of the cutting plane could be determined by your last bit of precision.
Consequently, I think it makes sense to just go ahead and compute the points of intersection in
the cutting plane, using enough precision to make the computation exact. If your segment endpoints coordinates and plane coefficients have L bits of precision, then there is just a small constant-factor increase needed. Although I am not certain of precisely what that factor is, it is small--perhaps 4. You will not need e.g., L2 bits, because the computation is solving linear equations.
So there will not be an explosion in the precision required to compute this exactly.
Good luck!
(I was prevented from posting the clarifying image because I don't have the reputation. See
the MO answer instead.)
Edit: Do see the MO answer, but here's the image:
I would write symbolic vector equations, you know, with dot and cross products, to find the normal of the intersection triangle. Then, the sign of the dot product of this normal with the initial triangle one gives the orientation. So finally you can express this in a form sign(F(p1,...,p9)), where p1 to p9 are your points and F() is an ugly formula including dot and cross products of differences (pi-pj). Don't know if this can be done simpler, but this general approach does the job.
As I understand it, you have three lines intersecting the plane, and you want to calculate the orientation of the triangle formed by the intersection points, without calculating the intersection points themselves?
If so: you have a plane
N·(x - x0) = 0
and six points...
l1a, l1b, l2a, l2b, l3a, l3b
...forming three lines
l1 = l1a + t(l1b - l1a)
l2 = l2a + u(l2b - l2a)
l3 = l3a + v(l3b - l3a)
The intersection points of these lines to the plane occur at specific values of t, u, v, which I'll call ti, ui, vi
N·(l1a + ti(l1b - l1a) - x0) = 0
N·(x0 - l1a)
ti = ----------------
N·(l1b - l1a)
(similarly for ui, vi)
Then the specific points of intersection are
intersect1 = l1a + ti(l1b - l1a)
intersect2 = l2a + ui(l2b - l2a)
intersect3 = l3a + vi(l3b - l3a)
Finally, the orientation of your triangle is
orientation = direction of (intersect2 - intersect1)x(intersect3 - intersect1)
(x is cross-product) Work backwards plugging the values, and you'll have an equation for orientation based only on N, x0, and your six points.
Let's call your triangle vertices T[0], T[1], T[2], and the first line segment's endpoints are L[0] and L[1], the second is L[2] and L[3], and the third is L[4] and L[5]. I imagine you want a function
int Orient(Pt3 T[3], Pt3 L[6]); // index L by L[2*i+j], i=0..2, j=0..1
which returns 1 if the intersections have the same orientation as the triangle, and -1 otherwise.
The result should be symmetric under interchange of j values, antisymmetric under interchange of i values and T indices. As long as you can compute a quantity with these symmetries, that's all you need.
Let's try
Sign(Product( Orient3D(T[i],T[i+1],L[2*i+0],L[2*i+1]) * -Orient3D(T[i],T[i+1],L[2*i+1],L[2*i+0]) ), i=0..2))
where the product should be taken over cyclic permutations of the indices (modulo 3). I believe this has all the symmetry properties required. Orient3D is Shewchuk's 4-point plane orientation test, which I assume you're using.
Related
Given a point p exterior to an axially aligned, origin centered ellipse E, find the (upto) four unique normals to E passing through p.
This is not a Mathematica question. Direct computation is too slow; I am willing to sacrifice precision and accuracy for speed.
I have searched the web, but all I found involved overly complex calculations which if implemented directly appear to lack the performance I need. Is there a more "programmatical" way to do this, like using matrices or scaling the ellipse into a circle?
Let's assume the ellipse E is in "standard position", center at the origin and axes parallel to the coordinate axes:
(x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2 = 1 where a > b > 0
The boundary cases a=b are circles, where the normal lines are simply ones that pass through the center (origin) and are thus easy to find. So we omit discussion of these cases.
The slope of the tangent to the ellipse at any point (x,y) may be found by implicit differentiation:
dy/dx = -(b^2 x)/(a^2 y)
For the line passing through (x,y) and a specified point p = (u,v) not on the ellipse, that is normal to ellipse E when its slope is the negative reciprocal of dy/dx:
(y-v)/(x-u) * (-b^2 x)/(a^2 y) = -1 (N)
which simplifies to:
(x - (1+g)u) * (y + gv) = -g(1+g)uv where g = b^2/(a^2 - b^2)
In this form we recognize it is the equation for a right rectangular hyperbola. Depending on how many points of intersection there are between the ellipse and the hyperbola (2,3,4), we have that many normals to E passing through p.
By reflected symmetry, if p is assumed exterior to E, we may take p to be in the first quadrant:
(u/a)^2 + (v/b)^2 > 1 (exterior to E)
u,v > 0 (1'st quadrant)
We could have boundary cases where u=0 or v=0, i.e. point p lies on an axis of E, but these cases may be reduced to solving a quadratic, because two normals are the (coinciding) lines through the endpoints of that axis. We defer further discussion of these special cases for the moment.
Here's an illustration with a=u=5,b=v=3 in which only one branch of the hyperbola intersects E, and there will be only two normals:
If the system of two equations in two unknowns (x,y) is reduced to one equation in one unknown, the simplest root-finding method to code is a bisection method, but knowing something about the possible locations of roots/intersections will expedite our search. The intersection in the first quadrant is the nearest point of E to p, and likewise the intersection in the third quadrant is the farthest point of E from p. If the point p were a good bit closer to the upper endpoint of the minor axis, the branches of the hyperbola would shift together enough to create up to two more points of intersection in the fourth quadrant.
One approach would be to parameterize E by points of intersection with the x-axis. The lines from p normal to the ellipse must intersect the major axis which is a finite interval [-a,+a]. We can test both the upper and lower points of intersection q=(x,y) of a line passing through p=(u,v) and (z,0) as z sweeps from -a to +a, looking for places where the ellipse and hyperbola intersect.
In more detail:
1. Find the upper and lower points `q` of intersection of E with the
line through `p` and `(z,0)` (amounts to solving a quadratic)
3. Check the sign of a^2 y(x-u) - b^2 x(y-v) at `q=(x,y)`, because it
is zero if and only `q` is a point of normal intersection
Once a subinterval is detected (either for upper or lower portion) where the sign changes, it can be refined to get the desired accuracy. If only modest accuracy is needed, there may be no need to use faster root finding methods, but even if they are needed, having a short subinterval that isolates a root (or root pair in the fourth quadrant) will be useful.
** more to come comparing convergence of various methods **
I had to solve a problem similar to this, for GPS initialization. The question is: what is the latitude of a point interior to the Earth, especially near the center, and is it single-valued? There are lots of methods for converting ECEF cartesian coordinates to geodetic latitude, longitude and altitude (look up "ECEF to Geodetic"). We use a fast one with only one divide and sqrt per iteration, instead of several trig evaluations like most methods, but since I can't find it in the wild, I can't give it to you here. I would start with Lin and Wang's method, since it only uses divisions in its iterations. Here is a plot of the ellipsoid surface normals to points within 100 km of Earth's center (North is up in the diagram, which is really ECEF Z, not Y):
The star-shaped "caustic" in the figure center traces the center of curvature of the WGS-84 ellipsoid as latitude is varied from pole to equator. Note that the center of curvature at the poles is on the opposite side of the equator, due to polar flattening, and that the center of curvature at the equator is nearer to the surface than the axis of rotation.
Wherever lines cross, there is more than one latitude for that cartesian position. The green circle shows where our algorithm was struggling. If you consider that I cut off these normal vectors where they reach the axis, you would have even more normals for a given position for the problem considered in this SO thread. You would have 4 latitudes / normals inside the caustic, and 2 outside.
The problem can be expressed as the solution of a cubic equation which
gives 1, 2, or 3 real roots. For the derivation and closed form
solution see Appendix B of Geodesics on an ellipsoid of revolution. The boundary between 1 and 3 solutions is an astroid.
I have a set of points (with unknow coordinates) and the distance matrix. I need to find the coordinates of these points in order to plot them and show the solution of my algorithm.
I can set one of these points in the coordinate (0,0) to simpify, and find the others. Can anyone tell me if it's possible to find the coordinates of the other points, and if yes, how?
Thanks in advance!
EDIT
Forgot to say that I need the coordinates on x-y only
The answers based on angles are cumbersome to implement and can't be easily generalized to data in higher dimensions. A better approach is that mentioned in my and WimC's answers here: given the distance matrix D(i, j), define
M(i, j) = 0.5*(D(1, j)^2 + D(i, 1)^2 - D(i, j)^2)
which should be a positive semi-definite matrix with rank equal to the minimal Euclidean dimension k in which the points can be embedded. The coordinates of the points can then be obtained from the k eigenvectors v(i) of M corresponding to non-zero eigenvalues q(i): place the vectors sqrt(q(i))*v(i) as columns in an n x k matrix X; then each row of X is a point. In other words, sqrt(q(i))*v(i) gives the ith component of all of the points.
The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a matrix can be obtained easily in most programming languages (e.g., using GSL in C/C++, using the built-in function eig in Matlab, using Numpy in Python, etc.)
Note that this particular method always places the first point at the origin, but any rotation, reflection, or translation of the points will also satisfy the original distance matrix.
Step 1, arbitrarily assign one point P1 as (0,0).
Step 2, arbitrarily assign one point P2 along the positive x axis. (0, Dp1p2)
Step 3, find a point P3 such that
Dp1p2 ~= Dp1p3+Dp2p3
Dp1p3 ~= Dp1p2+Dp2p3
Dp2p3 ~= Dp1p3+Dp1p2
and set that point in the "positive" y domain (if it meets any of these criteria, the point should be placed on the P1P2 axis).
Use the cosine law to determine the distance:
cos (A) = (Dp1p2^2 + Dp1p3^2 - Dp2p3^2)/(2*Dp1p2* Dp1p3)
P3 = (Dp1p3 * cos (A), Dp1p3 * sin(A))
You have now successfully built an orthonormal space and placed three points in that space.
Step 4: To determine all the other points, repeat step 3, to give you a tentative y coordinate.
(Xn, Yn).
Compare the distance {(Xn, Yn), (X3, Y3)} to Dp3pn in your matrix. If it is identical, you have successfully identified the coordinate for point n. Otherwise, the point n is at (Xn, -Yn).
Note there is an alternative to step 4, but it is too much math for a Saturday afternoon
If for points p, q, and r you have pq, qr, and rp in your matrix, you have a triangle.
Wherever you have a triangle in your matrix you can compute one of two solutions for that triangle (independent of a euclidean transform of the triangle on the plane). That is, for each triangle you compute, it's mirror image is also a triangle that satisfies the distance constraints on p, q, and r. The fact that there are two solutions even for a triangle leads to the chirality problem: You have to choose the chirality (orientation) of each triangle, and not all choices may lead to a feasible solution to the problem.
Nevertheless, I have some suggestions. If the number entries is small, consider using simulated annealing. You could incorporate chirality into the annealing step. This will be slow for large systems, and it may not converge to a perfect solution, but for some problems it's the best you and do.
The second suggestion will not give you a perfect solution, but it will distribute the error: the method of least squares. In your case the objective function will be the error between the distances in your matrix, and actual distances between your points.
This is a math problem. To derive coordinate matrix X only given by its distance matrix.
However there is an efficient solution to this -- Multidimensional Scaling, that do some linear algebra. Simply put, it requires a pairwise Euclidean distance matrix D, and the output is the estimated coordinate Y (perhaps rotated), which is a proximation to X. For programming reason, just use SciKit.manifold.MDS in Python.
The "eigenvector" method given by the favourite replies above is very general and automatically outputs a set of coordinates as the OP requested, however I noticed that that algorithm does not even ask for a desired orientation (rotation angle) for the frame of the output points, the algorithm chooses that orientation all by itself!
People who use it might want to know at what angle the frame will be tipped before hand so I found an equation which gives the answer for the case of up to three input points, however I have not had time to generalize it to n-points and hope someone will do that and add it to this discussion. Here are the three angles the output sides will form with the x-axis as a function of the input side lengths:
angle side a = arcsin(sqrt(((c+b+a)*(c+b-a)*(c-b+a)*(-c+b+a)*(c^2-b^2)^2)/(a^4*((c^2+b^2-a^2)^2+(c^2-b^2)^2))))*180/Pi/2
angle side b = arcsin(sqrt(((c+b+a)*(c+b-a)*(c-b+a)*(-c+b+a)*(c^2+b^2-a^2)^2)/(4*b^4*((c^2+b^2-a^2)^2+(c^2-b^2)^2))))*180/Pi/2
angle side c = arcsin(sqrt(((c+b+a)*(c+b-a)*(c-b+a)*(-c+b+a)*(c^2+b^2-a^2)^2)/(4*c^4*((c^2+b^2-a^2)^2+(c^2-b^2)^2))))*180/Pi/2
Those equations also lead directly to a solution to the OP's problem of finding the coordinates for each point because: the side lengths are already given from the OP as the input, and my equations give the slope of each side versus the x-axis of the solution, thus revealing the vector for each side of the polygon answer, and summing those sides through vector addition up to a desired vertex will produce the coordinate of that vertex. So if anyone can extend my angle equations to handling beyond three input lengths (but I note: that might be impossible?), it might be a very fast way to the general solution of the OP's question, since slow parts of the algorithms that people gave above like "least square fitting" or "matrix equation solving" might be avoidable.
I'm using CML to manage the 3D math in an OpenGL-based interface project I'm making for work. I need to know the width of the viewing frustum at a given distance from the eye point, which is kept as a part of a 4x4 matrix that represents the camera. My goal is to position gui objects along the apparent edge of the viewport, but at some distance into the screen from the near clipping plane.
CML has a function to extract the planes of the frustum, giving them back in Ax + By + Cz + D = 0 form. This frustum is perpendicular to the camera, which isn't necessarily aligned with the z axis of the perspective projection.
I'd like to extract x and z coordinates so as to pin graphical elements to the sides of the screen at different distances from the camera. What is the best way to go about doing it?
Thanks!
This seems to be a duplicate of Finding side length of a cross-section of a pyramid frustum/truncated pyramid, if you already have a cross-section of known width a known distance from the apex. If you don't have that and you want to derive the answer yourself you can follow these steps.
Take two adjacent planes and find
their line of intersection L1. You
can use the steps here. Really
what you need is the direction
vector of the line.
Take two more planes, one the same
as in the previous step, and find
their line of intersection L2.
Note that all planes of the form Ax + By + Cz + D = 0 go through the origin, so you know that L1 and L2
intersect.
Draw yourself a picture of the
direction vectors for L1 and L2,
tails at the origin. These form an
angle; call it theta. Find theta
using the formula for the angle
between two vectors, e.g. here.
Draw a bisector of that angle. Draw
a perpendicular to the bisector at
the distance d you want from the
origin (this creates an isosceles
triangle, bisected into two
congruent right triangles). The
length of the perpendicular is your
desired frustum width w. Note that w is
twice the length of one of the bases
of the right triangles.
Let r be the length of the
hypotenuses of the right triangles.
Then rcos(theta/2)=d and
rsin(theta/2)=w/2, so
tan(theta/2)=(w/2)/d which implies
w=2d*tan(theta/2). Since you know d
and theta, you are done.
Note that we have found the length of one side of a cross-section of a frustrum. This will work with any perpendicular cross-section of any frustum. This can be extended to adapt it to a non-perpendicular cross-section.
Given a list of vertices (v), and a list of edges connecting the vertices (e), and a list of surfaces that connect the edges (s), how to calculate the volume of the Polyhedron?
Take the polygons and break them into triangles.
Consider the tetrahedron formed by each triangle and an arbitrary point (the origin).
Sum the signed volumes of these tetrahedra.
Notes:
This will only work if you can keep a consistent CW or CCW order to the triangles as viewed from the outside.
The signed volume of the tetrahedron is equal to 1/6 the determinant of the following matrix:
[ x1 x2 x3 x4 ]
[ y1 y2 y3 y4 ]
[ z1 z2 z3 z4 ]
[ 1 1 1 1 ]
where the columns are the homogeneous coordinates of the verticies (x,y,z,1).
It works even if the shape does not enclose the origin by subracting off that volume as well as adding it in, but that depends on having a consistent ordering.
If you can't preserve the order you can still find some way to break it into tetrahedrons and sum 1/6 absolute value of the determinant of each one.
Edit:
I'd like to add that for triangle mesh where one vertex (say V4) of the tetrahedron is (0,0,0) the determinante of the 4x4 matrix can be simplified to the upper left 3x3 (expansion along the 0,0,0,1 column) and that can be simplified to Vol = V1xV2.V3 where "x" is cross product and "." is dot product. So compute that expression for every triangle, sum those volumes and divide by 6.
Similarly with a polygon where we can split it into triangles and sum the areas,
you could split a polyhedron into pyramids and sum their volumes. But I'm not sure how hard is to implement an algorithm for that.
(I believe there is a mathematical way/formula, like using vectors and matrices.
I suggest to post your question also on http://mathoverflow.net)
I have done this before, but the surface mesh I used always had triangular facets. If your mesh has non triangular facets, you can easily break them up into triangular facets first. Then I fed it to TetGen to obtain a tetrahedralization of the interior. Finally, I added up all the volumes of the tetrahedra. TetGen is reasonably easy to use, and is the only library other than CGAL I know of that can handle complicated meshes. CGAL is pretty easy to use if you don't mind installing a gigantic library and use templates like crazy.
First, break every face into triangles by drawing in new edges.
Now look at one triangle, and suppose it's on the "upper" surface (some of these details will turn out to be unimportant later). Look at the volume below the triangle, down to some horizontal plane below the polyhedron. If {h1, h2, h3} are the heights of the three points, and A is the area of the base, then the volume of the solid will be A(h1+h2+h3)/3. Now we have to add up the volumes of these solids for the upper faces, and subtract them for the lower faces to get the volume of the polyhedron.
Play with the algebra and you'll see that the height of the polyhedron above the horizontal plane doesn't matter. The plane can be above the polyhedron, or pass through it, and the result will still be correct.
So what we need is (1) a way to calculate the area of the base, and (2) a way to tell an "upper" face from a "lower" one. The first is easy if you have the Cartesian coordinates of the points, the second is easy if the points are ordered, and you can combine them and kill two birds with one stone. Suppose for each face you have a list of its corners, in counter-clockwise order. Then the projection of those points on the x-y plane will be counterclockwise for an upper face and clockwise for a lower one. If you use this method to calculate the area of the base, it will come up positive for an upper face and negative for a lower one, so you can add them all together and have the answer.
So how do you get the ordered lists of corners? Start with one triangle, pick an ordering, and for each edge the neighbor that shares that edge should list those two points in the opposite order. Move from neighbor to neighbor until you have a list for every triangle. If the volume of the polyhedron comes up negative, just multiply by -1 (it means you chose the wrong ordering for that first triangle, and the polyhedron was inside-out).
EDIT:
I forgot the best part! If you check the algebra for adding up these volumes, you'll see that a lot of terms cancel out, especially when combining triangles back into the original faces. I haven't worked this out in detail, but it looks as if the final result could be a surprisingly simple function.
Here's a potential implementation for that in Python.
Can anyone please check if it's correct?
I believe that I am missing permutations of the points because my second test (cube) gives 0.666 and not 1. Ideas anyone?
Cheers
EL
class Simplex(object):
'''
Simplex
'''
def __init__(self,coordinates):
'''
Constructor
'''
if not len(coordinates) == 4:
raise RuntimeError('You must provide only 4 coordinates!')
self.coordinates = coordinates
def volume(self):
'''
volume: Return volume of simplex. Formula from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraeder
'''
import numpy
vA = numpy.array(self.coordinates[1]) - numpy.array(self.coordinates[0])
vB = numpy.array(self.coordinates[2]) - numpy.array(self.coordinates[0])
vC = numpy.array(self.coordinates[3]) - numpy.array(self.coordinates[0])
return numpy.abs(numpy.dot(numpy.cross(vA,vB),vC)) / 6.0
class Polyeder(object):
def __init__(self,coordinates):
'''
Constructor
'''
if len(coordinates) < 4:
raise RuntimeError('You must provide at least 4 coordinates!')
self.coordinates = coordinates
def volume(self):
pivotCoordinate = self.coordinates[0]
volumeSum = 0
for i in xrange(1,len(self.coordinates)-3):
newCoordinates = [pivotCoordinate]
for j in xrange(i,i+3):
newCoordinates.append(self.coordinates[j])
simplex = Simplex(newCoordinates)
volumeSum += simplex.volume()
return volumeSum
coords = []
coords.append([0,0,0])
coords.append([1,0,0])
coords.append([0,1,0])
coords.append([0,0,1])
s = Simplex(coords)
print s.volume()
coords.append([0,1,1])
coords.append([1,0,1])
coords.append([1,1,0])
coords.append([1,1,1])
p = Polyeder(coords)
print p.volume()
I'm looking for an algorithm to find the common intersection points between 3 spheres.
Baring a complete algorithm, a thorough/detailed description of the math would be greatly helpful.
This is the only helpful resource I have found so far:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/63138.html
But neither method described there is detailed enough for me to write an algorithm on.
I would prefer the purely algebraic method described in the second post, but what ever works.
Here is an answer in Python I just ported from the Wikipedia article. There is no need for an algorithm; there is a closed form solution.
import numpy
from numpy import sqrt, dot, cross
from numpy.linalg import norm
# Find the intersection of three spheres
# P1,P2,P3 are the centers, r1,r2,r3 are the radii
# Implementaton based on Wikipedia Trilateration article.
def trilaterate(P1,P2,P3,r1,r2,r3):
temp1 = P2-P1
e_x = temp1/norm(temp1)
temp2 = P3-P1
i = dot(e_x,temp2)
temp3 = temp2 - i*e_x
e_y = temp3/norm(temp3)
e_z = cross(e_x,e_y)
d = norm(P2-P1)
j = dot(e_y,temp2)
x = (r1*r1 - r2*r2 + d*d) / (2*d)
y = (r1*r1 - r3*r3 -2*i*x + i*i + j*j) / (2*j)
temp4 = r1*r1 - x*x - y*y
if temp4<0:
raise Exception("The three spheres do not intersect!");
z = sqrt(temp4)
p_12_a = P1 + x*e_x + y*e_y + z*e_z
p_12_b = P1 + x*e_x + y*e_y - z*e_z
return p_12_a,p_12_b
Probably easier than constructing 3D circles, because working mainly on lines and planes:
For each pair of spheres, get the equation of the plane containing their intersection circle, by subtracting the spheres equations (each of the form X^2+Y^2+Z^2+aX+bY+c*Z+d=0). Then you will have three planes P12 P23 P31.
These planes have a common line L, perpendicular to the plane Q by the three centers of the spheres. The two points you are looking for are on this line. The middle of the points is the intersection H between L and Q.
To implement this:
compute the equations of P12 P23 P32 (difference of sphere equations)
compute the equation of Q (solve a linear system, or compute a cross product)
compute the coordinates of point H intersection of these four planes. (solve a linear system)
get the normal vector U to Q from its equation (normalize a vector)
compute the distance t between H and a solution X: t^2=R1^2-HC1^2, (C1,R1) are center and radius of the first sphere.
solutions are H+tU and H-tU
A Cabri 3D construction showing the various planes and line L
UPDATE
An implementation of this answer in python complete with an example of usage can be found at this github repo.
It turns out the analytic solution is actually quite nice using this method and can tell you when a solution exists and when it doesn't (it is also possible to have exactly one solution.) There is no reason to use Newton's method.
IMHO, this is far easier to understand and simpler than trilateration given below. However, both techniques give correct answers in my testing.
ORIGINAL ANSWER
Consider the intersection of two spheres. To visualize it, consider the 3D line segment N connecting the two centers of the spheres. Consider this cross section
(source: googlepages.com)
where the red-line is the cross section of the plane with normal N. By symmetry, you can rotate this cross-section from any angle, and the red line segments length can not change. This means that the resulting curve of the intersection of two spheres is a circle, and must lie in a plane with normal N.
That being said, lets get onto finding the intersection. First, we want to describe the resulting circle of the intersection of two spheres. You can not do this with 1 equation, a circle in 3D is essentially a curve in 3D and you cannot describe curves in 3D by 1 eq.
Consider the picture
(source: googlepages.com)
let P be the point of intersection of the blue and red line. Let h be the length of the line segment along the red line from point P upwards. Let the distance between the two centers be denoted by d. Let x be the distance from the small circle center to P. Then we must have
x^2 +h^2 = r1^2
(d-x)^2 +h^2 = r2^2
==> h = sqrt(r1^2 - 1/d^2*(r1^2-r2^2+d^2)^2)
i.e. you can solve for h, which is the radius of the circle of intersection. You can find the center point C of the circle from x, along the line N that joins the 2 circle centers.
Then you can fully describe the circle as (X,C,U,V are all vector)
X = C + (h * cos t) U + (h * sin t) V for t in [0,2*PI)
where U and V are perpendicular vectors that lie in a plane with normal N.
The last part is the easiest. It remains only to find the intersection of this circle with the final sphere. This is simply a plug and chug of the equations (plug in for x,y,z in the last equation the parametric forms of x,y,z for the circle in terms of t and solve for t.)
edit ---
The equation that you will get is actually quite ugly, you will have a whole bunch of sine's and cosine's equal to something. To solve this you can do it 2 ways:
write the cosine's and sine's in terms of exponentials using the equality
e^(it) = cos t + i sin t
then group all the e^(it) terms and you should get a quadratic equations of e^(it)'s
that you can solve for using the quadratic formula, then solve for t. This will give you the exact solution. This method will actually tell you exactly if a solution exists, two exist or one exist depending on how many of the points from the quadratic method are real.
use newton's method to solve for t, this method is not exact but its computationally much easier to understand, and it will work very well for this case.
Basically you need to do this in 3 steps. Let's say you've got three spheres, S1, S2, and S3.
C12 is the circle created by the intersection of S1 and S2.
C23 is the circle created by the intersection of S2 and S3.
P1, P2, are the intersection points of C12 and C13.
The only really hard part in here is the sphere intersection, and thankfully Mathworld has that solved pretty well. In fact, Mathworld also has the solution to the circle intersections.
From this information you should be able to create an algorithm.
after searching the web this is one of the first hits, so i am posting the most clean and easy solution i found after some hours of research here: Trilateration
This wiki site contains a full description of a fast and easy to understand vector approach, so one can code it with little effort.
Here is another interpretation of the picture which Eric posted above:
Let H be the plane spanned by the centers of the three spheres. Let C1,C2,C3 be the intersections of the spheres with H, then C1,C2,C3 are circles. Let Lij be the line connecting the two intersection points of Ci and Cj, then the three lines L12,L23,L13 intersect at one point P. Let M be the line orthogonal to H through P, then your two points of intersection lie on the line M; hence you just need to intersect M with either of the spheres.