Search Results

Search found 74 results on 3 pages for 'theorem'.

Page 1/3 | 1 2 3  | Next Page >

  • Trying to detect collision between two polygons using Separating Axis Theorem

    - by Holly
    The only collision experience i've had was with simple rectangles, i wanted to find something that would allow me to define polygonal areas for collision and have been trying to make sense of SAT using these two links Though i'm a bit iffy with the math for the most part i feel like i understand the theory! Except my implementation somewhere down the line must be off as: (excuse the hideous font) As mentioned above i have defined a CollisionPolygon class where most of my theory is implemented and then have a helper class called Vect which was meant to be for Vectors but has also been used to contain a vertex given that both just have two float values. I've tried stepping through the function and inspecting the values to solve things but given so many axes and vectors and new math to work out as i go i'm struggling to find the erroneous calculation(s) and would really appreciate any help. Apologies if this is not suitable as a question! CollisionPolygon.java: package biz.hireholly.gameplay; import android.graphics.Canvas; import android.graphics.Color; import android.graphics.Paint; import biz.hireholly.gameplay.Types.Vect; public class CollisionPolygon { Paint paint; private Vect[] vertices; private Vect[] separationAxes; CollisionPolygon(Vect[] vertices){ this.vertices = vertices; //compute edges and separations axes separationAxes = new Vect[vertices.length]; for (int i = 0; i < vertices.length; i++) { // get the current vertex Vect p1 = vertices[i]; // get the next vertex Vect p2 = vertices[i + 1 == vertices.length ? 0 : i + 1]; // subtract the two to get the edge vector Vect edge = p1.subtract(p2); // get either perpendicular vector Vect normal = edge.perp(); // the perp method is just (x, y) => (-y, x) or (y, -x) separationAxes[i] = normal; } paint = new Paint(); paint.setColor(Color.RED); } public void draw(Canvas c, int xPos, int yPos){ for (int i = 0; i < vertices.length; i++) { Vect v1 = vertices[i]; Vect v2 = vertices[i + 1 == vertices.length ? 0 : i + 1]; c.drawLine( xPos + v1.x, yPos + v1.y, xPos + v2.x, yPos + v2.y, paint); } } /* consider changing to a static function */ public boolean intersects(CollisionPolygon p){ // loop over this polygons separation exes for (Vect axis : separationAxes) { // project both shapes onto the axis Vect p1 = this.minMaxProjection(axis); Vect p2 = p.minMaxProjection(axis); // do the projections overlap? if (!p1.overlap(p2)) { // then we can guarantee that the shapes do not overlap return false; } } // loop over the other polygons separation axes Vect[] sepAxesOther = p.getSeparationAxes(); for (Vect axis : sepAxesOther) { // project both shapes onto the axis Vect p1 = this.minMaxProjection(axis); Vect p2 = p.minMaxProjection(axis); // do the projections overlap? if (!p1.overlap(p2)) { // then we can guarantee that the shapes do not overlap return false; } } // if we get here then we know that every axis had overlap on it // so we can guarantee an intersection return true; } /* Note projections wont actually be acurate if the axes aren't normalised * but that's not necessary since we just need a boolean return from our * intersects not a Minimum Translation Vector. */ private Vect minMaxProjection(Vect axis) { float min = axis.dot(vertices[0]); float max = min; for (int i = 1; i < vertices.length; i++) { float p = axis.dot(vertices[i]); if (p < min) { min = p; } else if (p > max) { max = p; } } Vect minMaxProj = new Vect(min, max); return minMaxProj; } public Vect[] getSeparationAxes() { return separationAxes; } public Vect[] getVertices() { return vertices; } } Vect.java: package biz.hireholly.gameplay.Types; /* NOTE: Can also be used to hold vertices! Projections, coordinates ect */ public class Vect{ public float x; public float y; public Vect(float x, float y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; } public Vect perp() { return new Vect(-y, x); } public Vect subtract(Vect other) { return new Vect(x - other.x, y - other.y); } public boolean overlap(Vect other) { if( other.x <= y || other.y >= x){ return true; } return false; } /* used specifically for my SAT implementation which i'm figuring out as i go, * references for later.. * http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/game-programming/2d-rotated-rectangle-collision-r2604 * http://www.codezealot.org/archives/55 */ public float scalarDotProjection(Vect other) { //multiplier = dot product / length^2 float multiplier = dot(other) / (x*x + y*y); //to get the x/y of the projection vector multiply by x/y of axis float projX = multiplier * x; float projY = multiplier * y; //we want to return the dot product of the projection, it's meaningless but useful in our SAT case return dot(new Vect(projX,projY)); } public float dot(Vect other){ return (other.x*x + other.y*y); } }

    Read the article

  • Error in my Separating Axis Theorem collision code

    - by Holly
    The only collision experience i've had was with simple rectangles, i wanted to find something that would allow me to define polygonal areas for collision and have been trying to make sense of SAT using these two links Though i'm a bit iffy with the math for the most part i feel like i understand the theory! Except my implementation somewhere down the line must be off as: (excuse the hideous font) As mentioned above i have defined a CollisionPolygon class where most of my theory is implemented and then have a helper class called Vect which was meant to be for Vectors but has also been used to contain a vertex given that both just have two float values. I've tried stepping through the function and inspecting the values to solve things but given so many axes and vectors and new math to work out as i go i'm struggling to find the erroneous calculation(s) and would really appreciate any help. Apologies if this is not suitable as a question! CollisionPolygon.java: package biz.hireholly.gameplay; import android.graphics.Canvas; import android.graphics.Color; import android.graphics.Paint; import biz.hireholly.gameplay.Types.Vect; public class CollisionPolygon { Paint paint; private Vect[] vertices; private Vect[] separationAxes; int x; int y; CollisionPolygon(Vect[] vertices){ this.vertices = vertices; //compute edges and separations axes separationAxes = new Vect[vertices.length]; for (int i = 0; i < vertices.length; i++) { // get the current vertex Vect p1 = vertices[i]; // get the next vertex Vect p2 = vertices[i + 1 == vertices.length ? 0 : i + 1]; // subtract the two to get the edge vector Vect edge = p1.subtract(p2); // get either perpendicular vector Vect normal = edge.perp(); // the perp method is just (x, y) => (-y, x) or (y, -x) separationAxes[i] = normal; } paint = new Paint(); paint.setColor(Color.RED); } public void draw(Canvas c, int xPos, int yPos){ for (int i = 0; i < vertices.length; i++) { Vect v1 = vertices[i]; Vect v2 = vertices[i + 1 == vertices.length ? 0 : i + 1]; c.drawLine( xPos + v1.x, yPos + v1.y, xPos + v2.x, yPos + v2.y, paint); } } public void update(int xPos, int yPos){ x = xPos; y = yPos; } /* consider changing to a static function */ public boolean intersects(CollisionPolygon p){ // loop over this polygons separation exes for (Vect axis : separationAxes) { // project both shapes onto the axis Vect p1 = this.minMaxProjection(axis); Vect p2 = p.minMaxProjection(axis); // do the projections overlap? if (!p1.overlap(p2)) { // then we can guarantee that the shapes do not overlap return false; } } // loop over the other polygons separation axes Vect[] sepAxesOther = p.getSeparationAxes(); for (Vect axis : sepAxesOther) { // project both shapes onto the axis Vect p1 = this.minMaxProjection(axis); Vect p2 = p.minMaxProjection(axis); // do the projections overlap? if (!p1.overlap(p2)) { // then we can guarantee that the shapes do not overlap return false; } } // if we get here then we know that every axis had overlap on it // so we can guarantee an intersection return true; } /* Note projections wont actually be acurate if the axes aren't normalised * but that's not necessary since we just need a boolean return from our * intersects not a Minimum Translation Vector. */ private Vect minMaxProjection(Vect axis) { float min = axis.dot(new Vect(vertices[0].x+x, vertices[0].y+y)); float max = min; for (int i = 1; i < vertices.length; i++) { float p = axis.dot(new Vect(vertices[i].x+x, vertices[i].y+y)); if (p < min) { min = p; } else if (p > max) { max = p; } } Vect minMaxProj = new Vect(min, max); return minMaxProj; } public Vect[] getSeparationAxes() { return separationAxes; } public Vect[] getVertices() { return vertices; } } Vect.java: package biz.hireholly.gameplay.Types; /* NOTE: Can also be used to hold vertices! Projections, coordinates ect */ public class Vect{ public float x; public float y; public Vect(float x, float y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; } public Vect perp() { return new Vect(-y, x); } public Vect subtract(Vect other) { return new Vect(x - other.x, y - other.y); } public boolean overlap(Vect other) { if(y > other.x && other.y > x){ return true; } return false; } /* used specifically for my SAT implementation which i'm figuring out as i go, * references for later.. * http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/game-programming/2d-rotated-rectangle-collision-r2604 * http://www.codezealot.org/archives/55 */ public float scalarDotProjection(Vect other) { //multiplier = dot product / length^2 float multiplier = dot(other) / (x*x + y*y); //to get the x/y of the projection vector multiply by x/y of axis float projX = multiplier * x; float projY = multiplier * y; //we want to return the dot product of the projection, it's meaningless but useful in our SAT case return dot(new Vect(projX,projY)); } public float dot(Vect other){ return (other.x*x + other.y*y); } }

    Read the article

  • Need explanation on theorem form the book [closed]

    - by Pradeep
    I need some explanation on amortization analysis with respect to analysis of algorithm. I need some more explanation on one of the theorem attached. Explanation needed: 1. How did the author derive at Mij is O (ij-ij-1)? 2. Need explanation for quoted from the book " because at most ij-ij-1 -1 elements have been added into the table since the clear operation Mij-1 or since the beginning of the series." 3. Also what does the summation equation mean? need some more thorough explanation and the essence of the theorem. Removed Attached is the scan copy of the page from the Book

    Read the article

  • Azure, SLAs and CAP theorem

    - by dayscott
    Azure itself is imo PaaS and not IaaS. Do you agree? MS gurantees an availability of 99% and a strong consistency. You can find MS SLAs here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsazure/sla (three SLAs Uptime: http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4889/unbenanntqt.png ) I can't find anyhing about how they are going to archive that. Do they do backups? If Yes: How do they manage consistency? According to the Cap theorem (http://camelcase.blogspot.com/2007/08/cap-theorem.html ) their claims are not realistic. 2.1 Do you know detailed technical stuff about the how they are going to realize the claims about consistency and availability? On the MS page you'll find three SLAs .docs, one for SQL Azure, the second for Azure AppFabric/.Net Services and the third for Azure Compute&Storage.(Screenshot in 1.) How can one track whether SLAs are violated? Do they offer some sort of monitor, so I don't have to measure the uptime by myself?

    Read the article

  • 2D game collision response: SAT & minimum displacement along a given axis?

    - by Archagon
    I'm trying to implement a collision system in a 2D game I'm making. The separating axis theorem (as described by metanet's collision tutorial) seems like an efficient and robust way of handling collision detection, but I don't quite like the collision response method they use. By blindly displacing along the axis of least overlap, the algorithm simply ignores the previous position of the moving object, which means that it doesn't collide with the stationary object so much as it enters it and then bounces out. Here's an example of a situation where this would matter: According to the SAT method described above, the rectangle would simply pop out of the triangle perpendicular to its hypotenuse: However, realistically, the rectangle should stop at the lower right corner of the triangle, as that would be the point of first collision if it were moving continuously along its displacement vector: Now, this might not actually matter during gameplay, but I'd love to know if there's a way of efficiently and generally attaining accurate displacements in this manner. I've been racking my brains over it for the past few days, and I don't want to give up yet! (Cross-posted from StackOverflow, hope that's not against the rules!)

    Read the article

  • Narrow-phase collision detection algorithms

    - by Marian Ivanov
    There are three phases of collision detection. Broadphase: It loops between all objecs that can interact, false positives are allowed, if it would speed up the loop. Narrowphase: Determines whether they collide, and sometimes, how, no false positives Resolution: Resolves the collision. The question I'm asking is about the narrowphase. There are multiple algorithms, differing in complexity and accuracy. Hitbox intersection: This is an a-posteriori algorithm, that has the lowest complexity, but also isn't too accurate, Color intersection: Hitbox intersection for each pixel, a-posteriori, pixel-perfect, not accuratee in regards to time, higher complexity Separating axis theorem: This is used more often, accurate for triangles, however, a-posteriori, as it can't find the edge, when taking last frame in account, it's more stable Linear raycasting: A-priori algorithm, useful for semi-realistic-looking physics, finds the intersection point, even more accurate than SAT, but with more complexity Spline interpolation: A-priori, even more accurate than linear rays, even more coplexity. There are probably many more that I've forgot about. The question is, in when is it better to use SAT, when rays, when splines, and whether there is anything better.

    Read the article

  • Debugging Minimum Translation Vector

    - by SyntheCypher
    I implemented the minimum translation vector from codezealot's tutorial on SAT (Separating Axis Theorem) but I'm having an issue I can't quite figure out. Here's the example I have: As you can see in top and bottom left images regardless of the side the of the green car which red car is penetrating the MTV for the red car still remains as a negative number also here is the same example when the front of the red car is facing the opposite direction the number will always be positive. When the red car is past the half way through the green car it should switch polarity. I thought I'd compensated for this in my code, but apparently not either that or it's a bug I can find. Here is my function for finding and returning the MTV, any help would be much appreciated: Code

    Read the article

  • about Master theorem

    - by matin1234
    Hi this is the link http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~cs251/OldCourses/1997/topic5/ is written that for T(n)<=2n+T(n/3)+T(n/3) the T(n) is not O(n) but with master theorem we can use case 3 and we can say that its T(n) is theta(n) please help me! thanks how can we prove that T(n) is not O(n)

    Read the article

  • Collision detection with multiple polygons simultaneously

    - by Craig Innes
    I've written a collision system which detects/resolves collisions between a rectangular player and a convex polygon world using the Separating Axis Theorem. This scheme works fine when the player is colliding with a single polygon, but when I try to create a level made up of combinations of these shapes, the player gets "stuck" between shapes when trying to move from one polygon to the other. The reason for this seems to be that collisions are detected after the player has been pushed through the shape by its movement or gravity. When the system resolves the collision, it resolves them in an order that doesn't make sense (for example, when the player is moving from one flat rectangle to another, gravity pushes them below the ground, but the collision with the left hand side of the second block is resolved before the collision with the top of the block, meaning the player is pushed back left before being pushed back up). Other similar posts have resolved this problem by having a strict rule on which axes to resolve first. For example, always resolve the collision on the y axis, then if the object is still colliding with things, resolve on the x axis. This solution only works in the case of a completely axis oriented box world, and doesn't solve the problem if the player is stuck moving along a series of angled shapes or sliding down a wall. Does any one have any ideas of how I could alter my collision system to prevent these situations from happening?

    Read the article

  • Collision Detection with SAT: False Collision for Diagonal Movement Towards Vertical Tile-Walls?

    - by Macks
    Edit: Problem solved! Big thanks to Jonathan who pointed me in the right direction. Sean describes the method I used in a different thread. Also big thanks to him! :) Here is how I solved my problem: If a collision is registered by my SAT-method, only fire the collision-event on my character if there are no neighbouring solid tiles in the direction of the returned minimum translation vector. I'm developing my first tile-based 2D-game with Javascript. To learn the basics, I decided to write my own "game engine". I have successfully implemented collision detection using the separating axis theorem, but I've run into a problem that I can't quite wrap my head around. If I press the [up] and [left] arrow-keys simultaneously, my character moves diagonally towards the upper left. If he hits a horizontal wall, he'll just keep moving in x-direction. The same goes for [up] and [left] as well as downward-diagonal movements, it works as intended: http://i.stack.imgur.com/aiZjI.png Diagonal movement works fine for horizontal walls, for both left and right-movement However: this does not work for vertical walls. Instead of keeping movement in y-direction, he'll just stop as soon as he "enters" a new tile on the y-axis. So for some reason SAT thinks my character is colliding vertically with tiles from vertical walls: http://i.stack.imgur.com/XBEKR.png My character stops because he thinks that he is colliding vertically with tiles from the wall on the right. This only occurs, when: Moving into top-right direction towards the right wall Moving into top-left direction towards the left wall Bottom-right and bottom-left movement work: the character keeps moving in y-direction as intended. Is this inherited from the way SAT works or is there a problem with my implementation? What can I do to solve my problem? Oh yeah, my character is displayed as a circle but he's actually a rectangular polygon for the collision detection. Thank you very much for your help.

    Read the article

  • Trouble with SAT style vector projection in C#/XNA

    - by ssb
    Simply put I'm having a hard time working out how to work with XNA's Vector2 types while maintaining spatial considerations. I'm working with separating axis theorem and trying to project vectors onto an arbitrary axis to check if those projections overlap, but the severe lack of XNA-specific help online combined with pseudo code everywhere that omits key parts of the algorithm, googling has left me little help. I'm aware of HOW to project a vector, but the way that I know of doing it involves the two vectors starting from the same point. Particularly here: http://www.metanetsoftware.com/technique/tutorialA.html So let's say I have a simple rectangle, and I store each of its corners in a list of Vector2s. How would I go about projecting that onto an arbitrary axis? The crux of my problem is that taking the dot product of say, a vector2 of (1, 0) and a vector2 of (50, 50) won't get me the dot product I'm looking for.. or will it? Because that (50, 50) won't be the vector of the polygon's vertex but from whatever XNA calculates. It's getting the calculation from the right starting point that's throwing me off. I'm sorry if this is unclear, but my brain is fried from trying to think about this. I need a better understanding of how XNA calculates Vector2s as actual vectors and not just as random points.

    Read the article

  • Why do we use the Pythagorean theorem in game physics?

    - by Starkers
    I've recently learned that we use Pythagorean theorem a lot in our physics calculations and I'm afraid I don't really get the point. Here's an example from a book to make sure an object doesn't travel faster than a MAXIMUM_VELOCITY constant in the horizontal plane: MAXIMUM_VELOCITY = <any number>; SQUARED_MAXIMUM_VELOCITY = MAXIMUM_VELOCITY * MAXIMUM_VELOCITY; function animate(){ var squared_horizontal_velocity = (x_velocity * x_velocity) + (z_velocity * z_velocity); if( squared_horizontal_velocity <= SQUARED_MAXIMUM_VELOCITY ){ scalar = squared_horizontal_velocity / SQUARED_MAXIMUM_VELOCITY; x_velocity = x_velocity / scalar; z_velocity = x_velocity / scalar; } } Let's try this with some numbers: An object is attempting to move 5 units in x and 5 units in z. It should only be able to move 5 units horizontally in total! MAXIMUM_VELOCITY = 5; SQUARED_MAXIMUM_VELOCITY = 5 * 5; SQUARED_MAXIMUM_VELOCITY = 25; function animate(){ var x_velocity = 5; var z_velocity = 5; var squared_horizontal_velocity = (x_velocity * x_velocity) + (z_velocity * z_velocity); var squared_horizontal_velocity = 5 * 5 + 5 * 5; var squared_horizontal_velocity = 25 + 25; var squared_horizontal_velocity = 50; // if( squared_horizontal_velocity <= SQUARED_MAXIMUM_VELOCITY ){ if( 50 <= 25 ){ scalar = squared_horizontal_velocity / SQUARED_MAXIMUM_VELOCITY; scalar = 50 / 25; scalar = 2.0; x_velocity = x_velocity / scalar; x_velocity = 5 / 2.0; x_velocity = 2.5; z_velocity = z_velocity / scalar; z_velocity = 5 / 2.0; z_velocity = 2.5; // new_horizontal_velocity = x_velocity + z_velocity // new_horizontal_velocity = 2.5 + 2.5 // new_horizontal_velocity = 5 } } Now this works well, but we can do the same thing without Pythagoras: MAXIMUM_VELOCITY = 5; function animate(){ var x_velocity = 5; var z_velocity = 5; var horizontal_velocity = x_velocity + z_velocity; var horizontal_velocity = 5 + 5; var horizontal_velocity = 10; // if( horizontal_velocity >= MAXIMUM_VELOCITY ){ if( 10 >= 5 ){ scalar = horizontal_velocity / MAXIMUM_VELOCITY; scalar = 10 / 5; scalar = 2.0; x_velocity = x_velocity / scalar; x_velocity = 5 / 2.0; x_velocity = 2.5; z_velocity = z_velocity / scalar; z_velocity = 5 / 2.0; z_velocity = 2.5; // new_horizontal_velocity = x_velocity + z_velocity // new_horizontal_velocity = 2.5 + 2.5 // new_horizontal_velocity = 5 } } Benefits of doing it without Pythagoras: Less lines Within those lines, it's easier to read what's going on ...and it takes less time to compute, as there are less multiplications Seems to me like computers and humans get a better deal without Pythagorean theorem! However, I'm sure I'm wrong as I've seen Pythagoras' theorem in a number of reputable places, so I'd like someone to explain me the benefit of using Pythagorean theorem to a maths newbie. Does this have anything to do with unit vectors? To me a unit vector is when we normalize a vector and turn it into a fraction. We do this by dividing the vector by a larger constant. I'm not sure what constant it is. The total size of the graph? Anyway, because it's a fraction, I take it, a unit vector is basically a graph that can fit inside a 3D grid with the x-axis running from -1 to 1, z-axis running from -1 to 1, and the y-axis running from -1 to 1. That's literally everything I know about unit vectors... not much :P And I fail to see their usefulness. Also, we're not really creating a unit vector in the above examples. Should I be determining the scalar like this: // a mathematical work-around of my own invention. There may be a cleverer way to do this! I've also made up my own terms such as 'divisive_scalar' so don't bother googling var divisive_scalar = (squared_horizontal_velocity / SQUARED_MAXIMUM_VELOCITY); var divisive_scalar = ( 50 / 25 ); var divisive_scalar = 2; var multiplicative_scalar = (divisive_scalar / (2*divisive_scalar)); var multiplicative_scalar = (2 / (2*2)); var multiplicative_scalar = (2 / 4); var multiplicative_scalar = 0.5; x_velocity = x_velocity * multiplicative_scalar x_velocity = 5 * 0.5 x_velocity = 2.5 Again, I can't see why this is better, but it's more "unit-vector-y" because the multiplicative_scalar is a unit_vector? As you can see, I use words such as "unit-vector-y" so I'm really not a maths whiz! Also aware that unit vectors might have nothing to do with Pythagorean theorem so ignore all of this if I'm barking up the wrong tree. I'm a very visual person (3D modeller and concept artist by trade!) and I find diagrams and graphs really, really helpful so as many as humanely possible please!

    Read the article

  • Project ideas for automated deduction/automated theorem proving?

    - by wsh
    Dear Stack Overflow brethren, I'm a second-semester junior who will embark upon my thesis soon, and I have an interest in automated deduction and automated theorem provers. As in, I'd like to advance the art in some way (I don't mean that pretentiously, but I do want to do something productive). I've Googled pretty far and wide and so far few promising ideas have emerged. There are a few student project idea pages, but most seem either horribly outdated or too advanced (I was originally going to attempt to synthesize postmodernist thought (hahaha) and abstract its logical content, build a complete and consistent model (if possible, of course), and attempt to automate it, grounding said model as possible in a nonstandard logic a la these. My advisor thought that gave postmodernist thought too much credit (a while ago I reimplemented the Postmodernism Generator in Haskell with Parsec, so that is in part where the idea came from); I am tempted to concur.) So, yeah. Does anyone have ideas? I apologize if there is some obvious gap in my approach here/if I haven't appropriately done my homework (and if there is one, please tell me!), but in large part I don't even know where to start, and thank you for reading all that.

    Read the article

  • The Immerman-Szelepcsenyi Theorem

    - by Daniel Lorch
    In the Immerman-Szelepcsenyi Theorem, two algorithms are specified that use non-determinisim. There is a rather lengthy algorithm using "inductive counting", which determines the number of reachable configurations for a given non-deterministic turing machine. The algorithm looks like this: Let m_{i+1}=0 For all configurations C Let b=0, r=0 For all configurations D Guess a path from I to D in at most i steps If found Let r=r+1 If D=C or D goes to C in 1 step Let b=1 If r<m_i halt and reject Let m_{i+1}=m_{i+1}+b I is the starting configuration. m_i is the number of configurations reachable from the starting configuration in i steps. This algorithm only calculates the "next step", i.e. m_i+1 from m_i. This seems pretty reasonable, but since we have nondeterminisim, why don't we just write: Let m_i = 0 For all configurations C Guess a path from I to C in at most i steps If found m_i = m_i + 1 What is wrong with this algorithm? I am using nondeterminism to guess a path from I to C, and I verify reachability I am iterating through the list of ALL configurations, so I am sure to not miss any configuration I respect space bounds I can generate a certificate (the list of reachable configs) I believe I have a misunderstanding of the "power" of non-determinisim, but I can't figure out where to look next. I am stuck on this for quite a while and I would really appreciate any help.

    Read the article

  • iPhone SDK math - pythagorean theorem problem!

    - by Flafla2
    Just as a practice, I am working on an app that solves the famous middle school pythagorean theorem, a squared + b squared = c squared. Unfortunately, the out-coming answer has, in my eyes, nothing to do with the actual answer. Here is the code used during the "solve" action. - (IBAction)solve { int legoneint; int legtwoint; int hypotenuseint; int lonesq = legoneint * legoneint; int ltwosq = legtwoint * legtwoint; int hyposq = hypotenuseint * hypotenuseint; hyposq = lonesq + ltwosq; if ([legone.text isEqual:@""]) { legtwoint = [legtwo.text intValue]; hypotenuseint = [hypotenuse.text intValue]; answer.text = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"%d", legoneint]; self.view.backgroundColor = [UIColor blackColor]; } if ([legtwo.text isEqual:@""]) { legoneint = [legone.text intValue]; hypotenuseint = [hypotenuse.text intValue]; answer.text = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"%d", legtwoint]; self.view.backgroundColor = [UIColor blackColor]; } if ([hypotenuse.text isEqual:@""]) { legoneint = [legone.text intValue]; legtwoint = [legtwo.text intValue]; answer.text = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"%d", hypotenuseint]; self.view.backgroundColor = [UIColor blackColor]; } } By the way, legone, legtwo, and hypotenuse all represent the UITextField that corresponds to each mathematical part of the right triangle. Answer is the UILabel that tells, you guessed it, the answer. Does anyone see any flaws in the program? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Four-color theorem in Prolog (using a dynamic predicate)

    - by outa
    Hi, I'm working on coloring a map according to the four-color theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem) with SWI-Prolog. So far my program looks like this: colour(red). colour(blue). map_color(A,B,C) :- colour(A), colour(B), colour(C), C \= B, C \= A. (the actual progam would be more complex, with 4 colors and more fields, but I thought I'd start out with a simple case) Now, I want to avoid double solutions that have the same structure. E.g. for a map with three fields, the solution "red, red, blue" would have the same structure as "blue, blue, red", just with different color names, and I don't want both of them displayed. So I thought I would have a dynamic predicate solution/3, and call assert(solution(A,B,C)) at the end of my map_color predicate. And then, for each solution, check if they already exist as a solution/3 fact. The problem is that I would have to assert something like solution(Color1,Color1,Color2), i.e. with variables in order to make a unification check. And I can't think of a way to achieve this. So, the question is, what is the best way to assert a found solution and then make a unification test so that "red, red, blue" would unify with "blue, blue, red"?

    Read the article

  • How can I solve this SAT edge case?

    - by ssb
    I have an SAT implementation that basically works, and the fact that it works is what's giving me a few headaches. Basically there are some situations where using the SAT doesn't quite give me my intended result. One of these involves movement across multiple collision objects. Or to put it another way, if I have several collision boxes lined up next to each other such as to create something like a wall or a floor, movement along that surface while constantly applying force into that surface sometimes causes hangups, i.e. the player stops moving. This illustration shows what I mean: The 2 boxes on the bottom represent a floor, and the box on top/in the middle represents what my player is doing. There are several squares lined up as world obstacles to create some kind of wall, and if I move to the left across this surface while holding the down key then the issue arises. It only happens at the exact dividing point between two blocks. It only happens when moving to the left. At any rate I think I know why it happens, but I don't know how to solve it. Basically when I update my player movement I consider which directions are pressed, naturally, so if down is pressed I will add the speed to the Y component, and so on. But due to the way my SAT is implemented, when the penetration into the shape is the same from both sides it just goes with the smallest axis that it finds first, and it checks collisions against objects in the order that they were created because it goes through a foreach loop on the list of collidable objects. So this all adds up to the effect of if I'm moving to the left over a series of boxes while holding down, it will resolve me back to the right out of the first box and then up out of the box to the right of it, and this continues as long as the penetration is the same. The odd part is that this doesn't happen every time, which I am going to attribute to some oddity regarding multiplying velocity by the game time and causing some minor discrepancies between the lengths. Ultimately what this boils down to is that it will keep resolving me to the right and up, but this is technically expected behavior. All the solutions I can think of only address the symptoms of this problem and not the actual cause, such as not using many blocks to create walls or shapes, which is an option I'd like to keep open. I could also change which axis my algorithm defaults to, but that would just cause problems when going up/down along the walls. What can I do to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Need help with implementing collision detection using the Separating Axis Theorem

    - by Eddie Ringle
    So, after hours of Googling and reading, I've found that the basic process of detecting a collision using SAT is: for each edge of poly A project A and B onto the normal for this edge if intervals do not overlap, return false end for for each edge of poly B project A and B onto the normal for this edge if intervals do not overlap, return false end for However, as many ways as I try to implement this in code, I just cannot get it to detect the collision. My current code is as follows: for (unsigned int i = 0; i < asteroids.size(); i++) { if (asteroids.valid(i)) { asteroids[i]->Update(); // Player-Asteroid collision detection bool collision = true; SDL_Rect asteroidBox = asteroids[i]->boundingBox; // Bullet-Asteroid collision detection for (unsigned int j = 0; j < player.bullets.size(); j++) { if (player.bullets.valid(j)) { Bullet b = player.bullets[j]; collision = true; if (b.x + (b.w / 2.0f) < asteroidBox.x - (asteroidBox.w / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (b.x - (b.w / 2.0f) > asteroidBox.x + (asteroidBox.w / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (b.y - (b.h / 2.0f) > asteroidBox.y + (asteroidBox.h / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (b.y + (b.h / 2.0f) < asteroidBox.y - (asteroidBox.h / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (collision) { bool realCollision = false; float min1, max1, min2, max2; // Create a list of vertices for the bullet CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> bullVerts; bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x - b.w / 2.0f, b.y + b.h / 2.0f)); bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x - b.w / 2.0f, b.y - b.h / 2.0f)); bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x + b.w / 2.0f, b.y - b.h / 2.0f)); bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x + b.w / 2.0f, b.y + b.h / 2.0f)); // Create a list of vectors of the edges of the bullet and the asteroid CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> bullEdges; CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> asteroidEdges; for (int k = 0; k < 4; k++) { int n = (k == 3) ? 0 : k + 1; bullEdges.insert(new Vector2D(bullVerts[k]->x - bullVerts[n]->x, bullVerts[k]->y - bullVerts[n]->y)); asteroidEdges.insert(new Vector2D(asteroids[i]->vertices[k]->x - asteroids[i]->vertices[n]->x, asteroids[i]->vertices[k]->y - asteroids[i]->vertices[n]->y)); } for (unsigned int k = 0; k < asteroidEdges.size(); k++) { Vector2D *axis = asteroidEdges[k]->getPerpendicular(); min1 = max1 = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < asteroids[i]->vertices.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[l]); min1 = (test < min1) ? test : min1; max1 = (test > max1) ? test : max1; } min2 = max2 = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < bullVerts.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[l]); min2 = (test < min2) ? test : min2; max2 = (test > max2) ? test : max2; } delete axis; axis = NULL; if ( (min1 - max2) > 0 || (min2 - max1) > 0 ) { realCollision = false; break; } else { realCollision = true; } } if (realCollision == false) { for (unsigned int k = 0; k < bullEdges.size(); k++) { Vector2D *axis = bullEdges[k]->getPerpendicular(); min1 = max1 = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < asteroids[i]->vertices.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[l]); min1 = (test < min1) ? test : min1; max1 = (test > max1) ? test : max1; } min2 = max2 = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < bullVerts.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[l]); min2 = (test < min2) ? test : min2; max2 = (test > max2) ? test : max2; } delete axis; axis = NULL; if ( (min1 - max2) > 0 || (min2 - max1) > 0 ) { realCollision = false; break; } else { realCollision = true; } } } if (realCollision) { player.bullets.remove(j); int numAsteroids; float newDegree; srand ( j + asteroidBox.x ); if ( asteroids[i]->degree == 90.0f ) { if ( rand() % 2 == 1 ) { numAsteroids = 3; newDegree = 30.0f; } else { numAsteroids = 2; newDegree = 45.0f; } for ( int k = 0; k < numAsteroids; k++) asteroids.insert(new Asteroid(asteroidBox.x + (10 * k), asteroidBox.y + (10 * k), newDegree)); } delete asteroids[i]; asteroids.remove(i); } while (bullVerts.size()) { delete bullVerts[0]; bullVerts.remove(0); } while (bullEdges.size()) { delete bullEdges[0]; bullEdges.remove(0); } while (asteroidEdges.size()) { delete asteroidEdges[0]; asteroidEdges.remove(0); } } } } } } bullEdges is a list of vectors of the edges of a bullet, asteroidEdges is similar, and bullVerts and asteroids[i].vertices are, obviously, lists of vectors of each vertex for the respective bullet or asteroid. Honestly, I'm not looking for code corrections, just a fresh set of eyes.

    Read the article

  • How can I solve this SAT direct corner intersection edge case?

    - by ssb
    I have a working SAT implementation, but I am running into a problem where direct collisions at a corner do not work for tiled surfaces. That is, it clips on the surface when going in a certain direction because it gets hung up on one of the tiles, and so, for example, if I walk across a floor while holding both down and left, the player will stop when meeting the next shape because the player will be colliding with the right side rather than with the top of the floor tile. This illustration shows what I mean: The top block will translate right first and then up. I have checked here and here which are helpful, but this does not address what I should do in a situation where I don't have a tile-based world. My usage of the term "tile" before isn't really accurate since what I'm doing here is manually placing square obstacles next to each other, not assigning them spots on a grid. What can I do to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Referencing a theorem-like environment by its [name]

    - by Seamus
    I am using ntheorem to typeset a set of conditions. In my preamble I have: \theoremstyle{empty} \newtheorem{Condtion}{Condtion} When I want to typeset a condition, I write: \begin{Condtion}[name] \label{cnd:nm} foo foo foo \end{Condition} The name appears boldface on the same line as the start of the text of the condition, with no number or anything. Perfect. What I want to do now is refer to the condition by some variant of the \ref command, \ref calls the number [which is not displayed anywhere else] \thref writes "Condition n" for the nth condition \nameref writes the name of the SECTION of the label. a zref solution was suggested here, but seems unsatisfactory. Any clues?

    Read the article

  • AABB vs OBB Collision Resolution jitter on corners

    - by patt4179
    I've implemented a collision library for a character who is an AABB and am resolving collisions between AABB vs AABB and AABB vs OBB. I wanted slopes for certain sections, so I've toyed around with using several OBBs to make one, and it's working great except for one glaring issue; The collision resolution on the corner of an OBB makes the player's AABB jitter up and down constantly. I've tried a few things I've thought of, but I just can't wrap my head around what's going on exactly. Here's a video of what's happening as well as my code: Here's the function to get the collision resolution (I'm likely not doing this the right way, so this may be where the issue lies): public Vector2 GetCollisionResolveAmount(RectangleCollisionObject resolvedObject, OrientedRectangleCollisionObject b) { Vector2 overlap = Vector2.Zero; LineSegment edge = GetOrientedRectangleEdge(b, 0); if (!SeparatingAxisForRectangle(edge, resolvedObject)) { LineSegment rEdgeA = new LineSegment(), rEdgeB = new LineSegment(); Range axisRange = new Range(), rEdgeARange = new Range(), rEdgeBRange = new Range(), rProjection = new Range(); Vector2 n = edge.PointA - edge.PointB; rEdgeA.PointA = RectangleCorner(resolvedObject, 0); rEdgeA.PointB = RectangleCorner(resolvedObject, 1); rEdgeB.PointA = RectangleCorner(resolvedObject, 2); rEdgeB.PointB = RectangleCorner(resolvedObject, 3); rEdgeARange = ProjectLineSegment(rEdgeA, n); rEdgeBRange = ProjectLineSegment(rEdgeB, n); rProjection = GetRangeHull(rEdgeARange, rEdgeBRange); axisRange = ProjectLineSegment(edge, n); float axisMid = (axisRange.Maximum + axisRange.Minimum) / 2; float projectionMid = (rProjection.Maximum + rProjection.Minimum) / 2; if (projectionMid > axisMid) { overlap.X = axisRange.Maximum - rProjection.Minimum; } else { overlap.X = rProjection.Maximum - axisRange.Minimum; overlap.X = -overlap.X; } } edge = GetOrientedRectangleEdge(b, 1); if (!SeparatingAxisForRectangle(edge, resolvedObject)) { LineSegment rEdgeA = new LineSegment(), rEdgeB = new LineSegment(); Range axisRange = new Range(), rEdgeARange = new Range(), rEdgeBRange = new Range(), rProjection = new Range(); Vector2 n = edge.PointA - edge.PointB; rEdgeA.PointA = RectangleCorner(resolvedObject, 0); rEdgeA.PointB = RectangleCorner(resolvedObject, 1); rEdgeB.PointA = RectangleCorner(resolvedObject, 2); rEdgeB.PointB = RectangleCorner(resolvedObject, 3); rEdgeARange = ProjectLineSegment(rEdgeA, n); rEdgeBRange = ProjectLineSegment(rEdgeB, n); rProjection = GetRangeHull(rEdgeARange, rEdgeBRange); axisRange = ProjectLineSegment(edge, n); float axisMid = (axisRange.Maximum + axisRange.Minimum) / 2; float projectionMid = (rProjection.Maximum + rProjection.Minimum) / 2; if (projectionMid > axisMid) { overlap.Y = axisRange.Maximum - rProjection.Minimum; overlap.Y = -overlap.Y; } else { overlap.Y = rProjection.Maximum - axisRange.Minimum; } } return overlap; } And here is what I'm doing to resolve it right now: if (collisionDetection.OrientedRectangleAndRectangleCollide(obb, player.PlayerCollision)) { var resolveAmount = collisionDetection.GetCollisionResolveAmount(player.PlayerCollision, obb); if (Math.Abs(resolveAmount.Y) < Math.Abs(resolveAmount.X)) { var roundedAmount = (float)Math.Floor(resolveAmount.Y); player.PlayerCollision._position.Y -= roundedAmount; } else if (Math.Abs(resolveAmount.Y) <= 30.0f) //Catch cases where the player should be able to step over the top of something { var roundedAmount = (float)Math.Floor(resolveAmount.Y); player.PlayerCollision._position.Y -= roundedAmount; } else { var roundedAmount = (float)Math.Floor(resolveAmount.X); player.PlayerCollision._position.X -= roundedAmount; } } Can anyone see what might be the issue here, or has anyone experienced this before that knows a possible solution? I've tried for a few days to figure this out on my own, but I'm just stumped.

    Read the article

  • How can I get accurate collision resolution on the corners of rectangles?

    - by ssb
    I have a working collision system implemented, and it's based on minimum translation vectors. This works fine in most cases except when the minimum translation vector is not actually in the direction of the collision. For example: When a rectangle is on the far edge on any side of another rectangle, a force can be applied, in this example down, the pushes one rectangle into the other, particularly a static object like a wall or a floor. As in the picture, the collision is coming from above, but because it's on the very edge, it translates to the left instead of back up. I've searched for a while to find an approach but everything I can find deals with general corner collisions where my problem is only in this one limited case. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • What is going on in this SAT/vector projection code?

    - by ssb
    I'm looking at the example XNA SAT collision code presented here: http://www.xnadevelopment.com/tutorials/rotatedrectanglecollisions/rotatedrectanglecollisions.shtml See the following code: private int GenerateScalar(Vector2 theRectangleCorner, Vector2 theAxis) { //Using the formula for Vector projection. Take the corner being passed in //and project it onto the given Axis float aNumerator = (theRectangleCorner.X * theAxis.X) + (theRectangleCorner.Y * theAxis.Y); float aDenominator = (theAxis.X * theAxis.X) + (theAxis.Y * theAxis.Y); float aDivisionResult = aNumerator / aDenominator; Vector2 aCornerProjected = new Vector2(aDivisionResult * theAxis.X, aDivisionResult * theAxis.Y); //Now that we have our projected Vector, calculate a scalar of that projection //that can be used to more easily do comparisons float aScalar = (theAxis.X * aCornerProjected.X) + (theAxis.Y * aCornerProjected.Y); return (int)aScalar; } I think the problems I'm having with this come mostly from translating physics concepts into data structures. For example, earlier in the code there is a calculation of the axes to be used, and these are stored as Vector2, and they are found by subtracting one point from another, however these points are also stored as Vector2s. So are the axes being stored as slopes in a single Vector2? Next, what exactly does the Vector2 produced by the vector projection code represent? That is, I know it represents the projected vector, but as it pertains to a Vector2, what does this represent? A point on a line? Finally, what does the scalar at the end actually represent? It's fine to tell me that you're getting a scalar value of the projected vector, but none of the information I can find online seems to tell me about a scalar of a vector as it's used in this context. I don't see angles or magnitudes with these vectors so I'm a little disoriented when it comes to thinking in terms of physics. If this final scalar calculation is just a dot product, how is that directly applicable to SAT from here on? Is this what I use to calculate maximum/minimum values for overlap? I guess I'm just having trouble figuring out exactly what the dot product is representing in this particular context. Clearly I'm not quite up to date on my elementary physics, but any explanations would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

1 2 3  | Next Page >