I am trying to solve Determine the shape problem on Uva. From what I can get after reading the question it that it is an Ad Hoc geometry problem in which we have to use some geometry theorem to determine what shape the four points we take as input form on a 2D plane. After spending many hours I still cannot think of any efficient algorithm which can solve the problem efficiently in the given time limit.I tried using distance formula and slopes but was not of much help.Please suggest some good algorithm or theorem I can use to solve this problem.
My first thought was the following:
Determine the lengths of each side. Use the formula sqrt((a - x)^2 + (b - y)^2).
Determine each of the angles.
Determine which shape:
If all angles 90
If all sides equal, return SQUARE
Else, return RECTANGLE
Else if angle 1 = 3 and angle 2 = 4 equal
If all sides equal, return RHOMBUS
Else, return Parallelogram
Else if angle 1 + 2 == 180, or angle 3 + 4 == 180, return TRAPEZIUM
Else, return ORDINARY QUADRILATERAL
But consider the logic followed here; they've used vector math, and simply calculate whether something is a right angle or whether two lines are parallel, rather than calculating all angles.
Prepare some functions to calculate whether two lines are parallel, and whether an angle is a right angle (using vector mathematics).
Sort the points so they're in the correct rotational order (the actual order is ambiguous for concave shapes, but it shouldn't matter, should still return ORDINARY QUAD).
Determine the lengths of each line.
Determine the shape, given the lengths and whether lines are parallel or angles right.
Firstly, different shapes have the following relationship:
Ordinary Quadrilateral --(with one pair of parallel sides)--> Trapezium
Trapezium --(with additional pair of parallel sides)--> Parallelogram
Parallelogram
--(with four equal straight lines)--> Rhombus--(with four 90 degree angles)-->square
|--(with four 90 degree angles)--> Rectangle --(with four equal lines)--> square
Given four points, A, B, C, D, take random one(say A), and we need to calculate statistics(angle and length) of following four pairs of points(not all), including
(1) AB and CD, A1, L1
(2) AC and BD, A2, L2
(3) AB and AC, A3, L3
(4) AB and AD, A4, L4
And then I think the trick comes to how to organize the branches so that we could have minimal computation and code path. My proposal is listed as follows:
A3 = getAngle(AB, AC)
A4 = getAngle(AB, AD)
if A3 > A4
we know AD is the diagonal line, then use A, B, C to calculate
else
we know AC is the diagonal line, then use A, B, D to calculate
# following suppose we use A, B, C to do the calculation, we could easily do the A, B, D thing if define new variables
L3 = LengthEqual(AB, AC)
A1 = getAngle(AB, AD)
if A3 == 90 && A1 == 0
if L3 == True
Square
else
Rectangle
else
A2 = getAngle(AC, BD)
L2 = LengthEqual(AC, BD)
if A2 == 0 && A1 == 0
if L2 == True
Rhombus
else
Parallelogram
else if A2 == 0 || A1 == 0
Trapezium
else
Ordinary Quadrilateral
In this means, we could achieve relatively less computation to wisely branch to the results we want. Hope this helps.
Related
I am trying to take numbers from two intervals in Julia. The problem is the following,
I am trying to create concentric spheres and I need to generate vectors of dimension equal to 15 filled with numbers taken from each circle. The code is:
rmax = 5
ra = fill(0.0,1,rmax)
for i=1:rmax-1
ra[:,i].=rad/i
ra[:,rmax].= 0
end
for i=1:3
ptset = Any[]
for j=1:200
yt= 0
yt= rand(Truncated(Normal(0, 1), -ra[i], ra[i] ))
if -ra[(i+1)] < yt <= -ra[i] || ra[(i+1)] <= yt < ra[i]
push!(ptset,yt)
if length(ptset) == 15
break
end
end
end
end
Here, I am trying to generate spheres with uniform random numbers inside of each one; In this case, yt is only part of the construction of the numbers inside the sphere.
I would like to generate points in a sphere with radius r0 (ra[:,4] for this case), then points distributed from the edge of the first sphere to the second one wit radius r1 (here ra[:,3]) and so on.
In order to do that, I try to take elements that fulfill one of the two conditions -ra[(i+1)] < yt <= -ra[i]
or ra[(i+1)] <= yt < ra[i], i.e. I would like to generate a vector with positive and negative numbers. I used the operator || but it seems to take only the positive part. I am new in Julia and I am not sure how to take the elements from both parts of the interval. Does anyone has a hit on how to do it?. Thanks in advance
I hope I understood you correctly. First, we need to be able to sample uniformly from an N-dimensional shell with radii r0 and r1:
using Random
using LinearAlgebra: normalize
struct Shell{N}
r0::Float64
r1::Float64
end
Base.eltype(::Type{<:Shell}) = Vector{Float64}
function Random.rand(rng::Random.AbstractRNG, d::Random.SamplerTrivial{Shell{N}}) where {N}
shell = d[]
Δ = shell.r1 - shell.r0
θ = normalize(randn(N)) # uniformly distributed N-dimensional direction of length 1
r = shell.r0 .* θ # scale to a point on the interior of the shell
return r .+ Δ .* θ .* .√rand(N) # add a uniformly random segment between r0 and r1
end
(See here for more info about hooking into Random. You could equally implement a new Distribution, but that's not really necessary.)
Most importantly, a truncated normal will not result in a uniform distribution, but neither will adding a uniform scaling into the right direction: see here for why the square root is necessary (and I hope I got it right; you should check the math once more).
Then we can just create a sequence of shell samples with nested radii:
rmax = 5
rad = 10.0
ra = range(0, rad, length=rmax)
ptset = [rand(Shell{2}(ra[i], ra[i+1]), 15) for i = 1:(rmax - 1)]
(This part I wasn't really sure about, but the point should be clear.)
We have an array consisting of each entry as a tuple of two integers. Let the array be A = [(a1, b1), (a2, b2), .... , (an, bn)]. Now we have multiple queries where we are given an integer x, we need to find the maximum value of ai + |x - bi| for 1 <= i <= n.
I understand this can be easily achieved in O(n) time complexity for each query but I am looking for something faster than that, probably O(log n) for each query. I can preprocess the array in O(n) time, but the queries should be done faster than O(n).
Any kind of help would be appreciated.
It seems to be way too easy to over-think this.
For n = 1, the function is v-shaped with a minimum of a1 at b1, with slopes of -1 and 1, respectively - let's call these values ac and bc (for combined).
For an additional pair (ai, bi), one of the pairs may dominate the other (|bc - bi| ≤ |ac - ai), which may then be ignored.
Otherwise, the falling slope of the combination will be from the pair with the larger b, the rising slope from the other.
The minimum will be between the individual b, closer to the b of the pair with the larger a, the distance being half the difference between the (absolute value of the) "coordinate" differences, the minimum value that amount higher.
The main catch is that neither needs to be an integer - the only alternative being exactly in the middle between two integers.
(Ending up with the falling slope from max ai + bi, and the rising slope of max ai - bi.)
I have an Nx3 array that contains N 3D points
a1 b1 c1
a2 b2 c2
....
aN bN cN
I want to calculate Euclidean distance in a NxN array that measures the Euclidean distance between each pair of 3D points. (i,j) in result array returns the distance between (ai,bi,ci) and (aj,bj,cj). Is it possible to write a code in matlab without loop ?
The challenge of your problem is to make a N*N matrix and the result should return in this matrix without using loops.
I overcome this challenge by giving suitable dimension to Bsxfun function. By default X and ReshapedX should have the same dimensions when we call bsxfun function. But if the size of the matrixes are not equal and one of them has a singleton (equal to 1) dimension, the matrix is virtually replicated along that dimension to match the other matrix. Therefore, it returns N*3*N matrix which provides subtraction of each 3D point from the others.
ReshapedX = permute(X,[3,2,1]);
DiffX = bsxfun(#minus,X,ReshapedX);
DistX =sqrt(sum(DiffX.^2,2));
D = squeeze(DistX);
Use pdist and squareform:
D = squareform( pdist(X, 'euclidean' ) );
For beginners, it can be a nice exercise to compute the distance matrix D using bsxfun (hover to see the solution).
elemDiff = bsxfun( #minus, permute(X,[ 1 3 2 ]), permute(X, [ 3 1 2 ]) );
D = sqrt( sum( elemDiff.^2, 3 ) );
To complete the comment of Divakar:
x = rand(10,3);
pdist2(x, x, 'euclidean')
This question is related to matlab: find the index of common values at the same entry from two arrays.
Suppose that I have an 1000 by 10000 matrix that contains value 0,1,and 2. Each row are treated as a sample. I want to calculate the pairwise distance between those samples according to the formula d = 1-1/(2p)sum(a/c+b/d) where a,b,c,d can treated as as the row vector of length 10000 according to some definition and p=10000. c and d are probabilities such that c+d=1.
An example of how to find the values of a,b,c,d: suppose we want to find d between sample i and bj, then I look at row i and j.
If kth entry of row i and j has value 2 and 2, then a=2,b=0,c=1,d=0 (I guess I will assign 0/0=0 in this case).
If kth entry of row i and j has value 2 and 1 or vice versa, then a=1,b=0,c=3/4,d=1/4.
The similar assignment will give to the case for 2,0(a=0,b=0,c=1/2,d=1/2),1,1(a=1,b=1,c=1/2,d=1/2),1,0(a=0,b=1,c=1/4,d=3/4),0,0(a=0,b=2,c=0,d=1).
The matlab code I have so far is using for loops for i and j, then find the cases above by using find, then create two arrays for a/c and b/d. This is extremely slow, is there a way that I can improve the efficiency?
Edit: the distance d is the formula given in this paper on page 13.
Provided those coefficients are fixed, then I think I've successfully vectorised the distance function. Figuring out the formulae was fun. I flipped things around a bit to minimise division, and since I wasn't aware of pdist until #horchler's comment, you get it wrapped in loops with the constants factored out:
% m is the data
[n p] = size(m, 1);
distance = zeros(n);
for ii=1:n
for jj=ii+1:n
a = min(m(ii,:), m(jj,:));
b = 2 - max(m(ii,:), m(jj,:));
c = 4 ./ (m(ii,:) + m(jj,:));
c(c == Inf) = 0;
d = 1 - c;
distance(ii,jj) = sum(a.*c + b.*d);
% distance(jj,ii) = distance(ii,jj); % optional for the full matrix
end
end
distance = 1 - (1 / (2 * p)) * distance;
I've been trying to find solution to my problem for more than a week and I couldn't find out anything better than a milion iterations prog, so I think it's time to ask someone to help me.
I've got a 3D array. Let's say, we're talking about the ground and the first layer is a surface.
Another layers are floors below the ground. I have to find deepest path's length, count of isolated caves underground and the size of the biggest cave.
Here's the visualisation of my problem.
Input:
5 5 5 // x, y, z
xxxxx
oxxxx
xxxxx
xoxxo
ooxxx
xxxxx
xxoxx
and so...
Output:
5 // deepest path - starting from the surface
22 // size of the biggest cave
3 // number of izolated caves (red ones) (izolated - cave that doesn't reach the surface)
Note, that even though red cell on the 2nd floor is placed next to green one, It's not the same cave because it's placed diagonally and that doesn't count.
I've been told that the best way to do this, might be using recursive algorithm "divide and rule" however I don't really know how could it look like.
I think you should be able to do it in O(N).
When you parse your input, assign each node a 'caveNumber' initialized to 0. Set it to a valid number whenever you visit a cave:
CaveCount = 0, IsolatedCaveCount=0
AllSizes = new Vector.
For each node,
ProcessNode(size:0,depth:0);
ProcessNode(size,depth):
If node.isCave and !node.caveNumber
if (size==0) ++CaveCount
if (size==0 and depth!=0) IsolatedCaveCount++
node.caveNumber = CaveCount
AllSizes[CaveCount]++
For each neighbor of node,
if (goingDeeper) depth++
ProcessNode(size+1, depth).
You will visit each node 7 times at worst case: once from the outer loop, and possibly once from each of its six neighbors. But you'll only work on each one once, since after that the caveNumber is set, and you ignore it.
You can do the depth tracking by adding a depth parameter to the recursive ProcessNode call, and only incrementing it when visiting a lower neighbor.
The solution shown below (as a python program) runs in time O(n lg*(n)), where lg*(n) is the nearly-constant iterated-log function often associated with union operations in disjoint-set forests.
In the first pass through all cells, the program creates a disjoint-set forest, using routines called makeset(), findset(), link(), and union(), just as explained in section 22.3 (Disjoint-set forests) of edition 1 of Cormen/Leiserson/Rivest. In later passes through the cells, it counts the number of members of each disjoint forest, checks the depth, etc. The first pass runs in time O(n lg*(n)) and later passes run in time O(n) but by simple program changes some of the passes could run in O(c) or O(b) for c caves with a total of b cells.
Note that the code shown below is not subject to the error contained in a previous answer, where the previous answer's pseudo-code contains the line
if (size==0 and depth!=0) IsolatedCaveCount++
The error in that line is that a cave with a connection to the surface might have underground rising branches, which the other answer would erroneously add to its total of isolated caves.
The code shown below produces the following output:
Deepest: 5 Largest: 22 Isolated: 3
(Note that the count of 24 shown in your diagram should be 22, from 4+9+9.)
v=[0b0000010000000000100111000, # Cave map
0b0000000100000110001100000,
0b0000000000000001100111000,
0b0000000000111001110111100,
0b0000100000111001110111101]
nx, ny, nz = 5, 5, 5
inlay, ncells = (nx+1) * ny, (nx+1) * ny * nz
masks = []
for r in range(ny):
masks += [2**j for j in range(nx*ny)][nx*r:nx*r+nx] + [0]
p = [-1 for i in range(ncells)] # parent links
r = [ 0 for i in range(ncells)] # rank
c = [ 0 for i in range(ncells)] # forest-size counts
d = [-1 for i in range(ncells)] # depths
def makeset(x): # Ref: CLR 22.3, Disjoint-set forests
p[x] = x
r[x] = 0
def findset(x):
if x != p[x]:
p[x] = findset(p[x])
return p[x]
def link(x,y):
if r[x] > r[y]:
p[y] = x
else:
p[x] = y
if r[x] == r[y]:
r[y] += 1
def union(x,y):
link(findset(x), findset(y))
fa = 0 # fa = floor above
bc = 0 # bc = floor's base cell #
for f in v: # f = current-floor map
cn = bc-1 # cn = cell#
ml = 0
for m in masks:
cn += 1
if m & f:
makeset(cn)
if ml & f:
union(cn, cn-1)
mr = m>>nx
if mr and mr & f:
union(cn, cn-nx-1)
if m & fa:
union(cn, cn-inlay)
ml = m
bc += inlay
fa = f
for i in range(inlay):
findset(i)
if p[i] > -1:
d[p[i]] = 0
for i in range(ncells):
if p[i] > -1:
c[findset(i)] += 1
if d[p[i]] > -1:
d[p[i]] = max(d[p[i]], i//inlay)
isola = len([i for i in range(ncells) if c[i] > 0 and d[p[i]] < 0])
print "Deepest:", 1+max(d), " Largest:", max(c), " Isolated:", isola
It sounds like you're solving a "connected components" problem. If your 3D array can be converted to a bit array (e.g. 0 = bedrock, 1 = cave, or vice versa) then you can apply a technique used in image processing to find the number and dimensions of either the foreground or background.
Typically this algorithm is applied in 2D images to find "connected components" or "blobs" of the same color. If possible, find a "single pass" algorithm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected-component_labeling
The same technique can be applied to 3D data. Googling "connected components 3D" will yield links like this one:
http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/wrf/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Research/ConnectedComponents
Once the algorithm has finished processing your 3D array, you'll have a list of labeled, connected regions, and each region will be a list of voxels (volume elements analogous to image pixels). You can then analyze each labeled region to determine volume, closeness to the surface, height, etc.
Implementing these algorithms can be a little tricky, and you might want to try a 2D implementation first. Thought it might not be as efficient as you like, you could create a 3D connected component labeling algorithm by applying a 2D algorithm iteratively to each layer and then relabeling the connected regions from the top layer to the bottom layer:
For layer 0, find all connected regions using the 2D connected component algorithm
For layer 1, find all connected regions.
If any labeled pixel in layer 0 sits directly over a labeled pixel in layer 1, change all the labels in layer 1 to the label in layer 0.
Apply this labeling technique iteratively through the stack until you reach layer N.
One important considering in connected component labeling is how one considers regions to be connected. In a 2D image (or 2D array) of bits, we can consider either the "4-connected" region of neighbor elements
X 1 X
1 C 1
X 1 X
where "C" is the center element, "1" indicates neighbors that would be considered connected, and "X" are adjacent neighbors that we do not consider connected. Another option is to consider "8-connected neighbors":
1 1 1
1 C 1
1 1 1
That is, every element adjacent to a central pixel is considered connected. At first this may sound like the better option. In real-world 2D image data a chessboard pattern of noise or diagonal string of single noise pixels will be detected as a connected region, so we typically test for 4-connectivity.
For 3D data you can consider either 6-connectivity or 26-connectivity: 6-connectivity considers only the neighbor pixels that share a full cube face with the center voxel, and 26-connectivity considers every adjacent pixel around the center voxel. You mention that "diagonally placed" doesn't count, so 6-connectivity should suffice.
You can observe it as a graph where (non-diagonal) adjacent elements are connected if they both empty (part of a cave). Note that you don't have to convert it to a graph, you can use normal 3d array representation.
Finding caves is the same task as finding the connected components in a graph (O(N)) and the size of a cave is the number of nodes of that component.