For compact Euclidean bodiesP, Q, we define λ(P, Q) to be the smallest ratior/s wherer > 0,s > 0 satisfy\(sQ' \subseteq P \subseteq rQ''\). HeresQ denotes a scaling ofQ by the factors, andQ′,Q″ are some translates ofQ. This function λ gives us a new distance function between bodies which, unlike previously studied measures, is invariant under affine transformations. If homothetic bodies are identified, the logarithm of this function is a metric. (Two bodies arehomothetic if one can be obtained from the other by scaling and translation.)
For integerk ≥ 3, define λ(k) to be the minimum value such that for each convex polygonP there exists a convexk-gonQ with λ(P, Q) ≤ λ(k). Among other results, we prove that 2.118 ... <-λ(3) ≤ 2.25 and λ(k) = 1 + Θ(k−2). We give anO(n2 log2n)-time algorithm which, for any input convexn-gonP, finds a triangleT that minimizes λ(T, P) among triangles. However, in linear time we can find a trianglet with λ(t, P)<-2.25.
Our study is motivated by the attempt to reduce the complexity of the polygon containment problem, and also the motion-planning problem. In each case we describe algorithms which run faster when certain implicitslackness parameters of the input are bounded away from 1. These algorithms illustrate a new algorithmic paradigm in computational geometry for coping with complexity.
Key wordsPolygonal approximation Algorithmic paradigms Shape approximation Computational geometry Implicit complexity parameters Banach-Mazur metric
- H. Alt, R. Fleischer, M. Kaufmann, K. Mehlhorn, S. Näher, S. Schirra, and C. Uhrig, Approximate motion planning and the complexity of the boundary of the union of simple geometric figures, inProc. Sixth Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, 1990, pp. 281–289.Google Scholar
- B. Chazelle, The polygon containment problem,Adv. Comput. Res. 1 (1983), 1–33.Google Scholar
- D. Dobkin and L. Snyder, On a general method for maximizing and minimizing among certain geometric problems, inProc. 20th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1979, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
- R. Fleischer, K. Mehlhorn, G. Rote, E. Welzl, and C. Yap, On simultaneous inner and outer approximation of shapes, inProc. Sixth Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, 1990, pp. 216–224.Google Scholar
- R. Frank, Private communication (1990).Google Scholar
- P. M. Gruber, Approximation of convex bodies, inConvexity and Its Applications, eds. P. M. Gruber and J. M. Wills, Birkhäuser-Verlag, Basel, 1983, pp. 131–162.Google Scholar
- F. John, Extremum problems with inequalities as subsidiary conditions, inStudies and Essays Presented to R. Courant on His 60th Birthday, Interscience, New York, 1948, pp. 187–204.Google Scholar
- A. Saam, Private communication (1989).Google Scholar
- O. Schwarzkopf, U. Fuchs, G. Rote, and E. Welzl, Approximation of convex figures by pairs of rectangles, inProc. Seventh Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 415, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990, pp. 240–249.Google Scholar
- C. K. Yap, Algorithmic motion planning, inAdvances in Robotics, Vol. 1, eds. J. T. Schwartz and C. K. Yap, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987, Chapter 3.Google Scholar