From: jonas-y@isy.liu.se (Jonas Yngvesson)
Subject: Re: Point within a polygon
Keywords: point, polygon
Organization: Dept of EE, University of Linkoping
Lines: 129

scrowe@hemel.bull.co.uk (Simon Crowe) writes:

>I am looking for an algorithm to determine if a given point is bound by a 
>polygon. Does anyone have any such code or a reference to book containing
>information on the subject ?

Well, it's been a while since this was discussed so i take the liberty of
reprinting (without permission, so sue me) Eric Haines reprint of the very
interesting discussion of this topic...

                /Jonas

                         O /         \ O
------------------------- X snip snip X ------------------------------
                         O \         / O

"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat one day.
Give a man a fishing rod, and he'll laze around fishing and never do anything."

With that in mind, I reprint (without permission, so sue me) relevant
information posted some years ago on this very problem.  Note the early use of
PostScript technology, predating many of this year's papers listed in the
April 1st SIGGRAPH Program Announcement posted here a few days ago.

-- Eric


Intersection Between a Line and a Polygon (UNDECIDABLE??),
	by Dave Baraff, Tom Duff

	From: deb@charisma.graphics.cornell.edu
	Newsgroups: comp.graphics
	Keywords: P, NP, Jordan curve separation, Ursyhon Metrization Theorem
	Organization: Program of Computer Graphics

In article [...] ncsmith@ndsuvax.UUCP (Timothy Lyle Smith) writes:
>
>  I need to find a formula/algorithm to determine if a line intersects
>  a polygon.  I would prefer a method that would do this in as little
>  time as possible.  I need this for use in a forward raytracing
>  program.

I think that this is a very difficult problem.  To start with, lines and
polygons are semi-algebraic sets which both contain uncountable number of
points.  Here are a few off-the-cuff ideas.

First, we need to check if the line and the polygon are separated.  Now, the
Jordan curve separation theorem says that the polygon divides the plane into
exactly two open (and thus non-compact) regions.  Thus, the line lies
completely inside the polygon, the line lies completely outside the polygon,
or possibly (but this will rarely happen) the line intersects the polyon.

Now, the phrasing of this question says "if a line intersects a polygon", so
this is a decision problem.  One possibility (the decision model approach) is
to reduce the question to some other (well known) problem Q, and then try to
solve Q.  An answer to Q gives an answer to the original decision problem.

In recent years, many geometric problems have been successfully modeled in a
new language called PostScript.  (See "PostScript Language", by Adobe Systems
Incorporated, ISBN # 0-201-10179-3, co. 1985).

So, given a line L and a polygon P, we can write a PostScript program that
draws the line L and the polygon P, and then "outputs" the answer.  By
"output", we mean the program executes a command called "showpage", which
actually prints a page of paper containing the line and the polygon.  A quick
examination of the paper provides an answer to the reduced problem Q, and thus
the original problem.

There are two small problems with this approach. 

	(1) There is an infinite number of ways to encode L and P into the
	reduced problem Q.  So, we will be forced to invoke the Axiom of
	Choice (or equivalently, Zorn's Lemma).  But the use of the Axiom of
	Choice is not regarded in a very serious light these days.

	(2) More importantly, the question arises as to whether or not the
	PostScript program Q will actually output a piece of paper; or in
	other words, will it halt?

	Now, PostScript is expressive enough to encode everything that a
	Turing Machine might do; thus the halting problem (for PostScript) is
	undecidable.  It is quite possible that the original problem will turn
	out to be undecidable.


I won't even begin to go into other difficulties, such as aliasing, finite
precision and running out of ink, paper or both.

A couple of references might be:

1. Principia Mathematica.  Newton, I.  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
   England.  (Sorry, I don't have an ISBN# for this).

2. An Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation.  Hopcroft, J
   and Ulman, J.

3. The C Programming Language. Kernighan, B and Ritchie, D.

4. A Tale of Two Cities. Dickens, C.

--------

From: td@alice.UUCP (Tom Duff)
Summary: Overkill.
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

The situation is not nearly as bleak as Baraff suggests (he should know
better, he's hung around The Labs for long enough).  By the well known
Dobbin-Dullman reduction (see J. Dullman & D. Dobbin, J. Comp. Obfusc.
37,ii:  pp. 33-947, lemma 17(a)) line-polygon intersection can be reduced to
Hamiltonian Circuit, without(!) the use of Grobner bases, so LPI (to coin an
acronym) is probably only NP-complete.  Besides, Turing-completeness will no
longer be a problem once our Cray-3 is delivered, since it will be able to
complete an infinite loop in 4 milliseconds (with scatter-gather.)

--------

From: deb@svax.cs.cornell.edu (David Baraff)

Well, sure its no worse than NP-complete, but that's ONLY if you restrict
yourself to the case where the line satisfies a Lipschitz condition on its
second derivative.  (I think there's an '89 SIGGRAPH paper from Caltech that
deals with this).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 J o n a s   Y n g v e s s o n          email: jonas-y@isy.liu.se
Dept. of Electrical Engineering	        voice:  +46-(0)13-282162          
University of Linkoping, Sweden         fax  :  +46-(0)13-139282
