The nature and meaning of perturbations in geometric computing

  • Raimund Seidel
Invited Lecture
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 775)


This note addresses some fundamental questions concerning perturbations as they are used in computational geometry: How does one define them? What does it mean to compute with them? How can one compute with them? Is it sensible to use them?

We define perturbations to be curves, point out that computing with them amounts to computing with limits. and (re)derive some methods of computing with such limits automatically. In principle a line can always be used as a perturbation curve. We discuss a generic method for choosing such a line that is applicable in many situations.


Perturbation Method Computational Geometry Linear Perturbation Perturbation Scheme Multivariate Polynomial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. Burnikel, K. Mehlhorn, and S. Schirra, On Degeneracy in Geometric Computations. Proc. 5th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (1994).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Canny, Private Communication.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G.B. Dantzig, Linear Programming and Extensions. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1963.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Dobrindt, Algorithmen für Polyeder. Diplomarbeit, FB 14, Informatik, Univ. des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken (1990).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Edelsbrunner and E.P. Mücke, Simulation of Simplicity: A technique to Cope with Degenerate Cases in Geometric Algorithms. ACM Trans. Graphics, 9(1), (1990), 67–104.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I. Emiris and J. Canny, A General Approach to Removing Degeneracies. Proc. 32nd Annual IEEE Symp. FOCS (1991), 405–413.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Emiris and J. Canny, An Efficient Approach to Removing Geometric Degeneracies. Proc. 8th Annual ACM Symp. on Comp. Geom. (1991), 74–82.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Griewank and G.F. Corliss, Automatic Differentiation of Algorithms: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. SIAM (1991).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L.J. Guibas and J. Stolfi, Primitives for Manipulation of General Subdivisions and Computation of Voronoi Diagrams. ACM Trans. Graphics, 4(2), (1985), 74–123.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S.G. Krantz and H.R. Parks, A Primer of Real Analytic Functions. Birkhäuser Verlag (1992).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Monma, M. Paterson, S. Suri, and F. Yao, Computing Euclidean Maximum Spanning Trees. Proc. 4th Annual ACM Symp. on Comp. Geom. (1988), 241–251.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F.P. Preparata and M.I. Shamos, Computational Geometry, An Introduction. Springer Verlag (1985).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.T. Schwartz, Fast Probabilistic Algorithms for Verification of Polynomial Identities. JACM 27(4), (1980), 701–717.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Seidel, Output-Size Sensitive Algorithms for Constructive Problems in Computational Geometry. PhD thesis, Computer Science Dept., Cornell Univ., (1986).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Thiele, Private Communication.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.-K. Yap, Symbolic Treatment of Geometric Degeneracies, J. Symbolic Computation 10 (1990), 349–370.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.-K. Yap, A Geometric Consistency Theorem for a Symbolic Perturbation Scheme. J. Computer and Systems Science 40 (1990), 2–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raimund Seidel
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DivisionUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations