Triangular Vertices - Lua calculation? - lua

I am current determined to complete a problem in Lua and have no idea where to begin. I was thinking about beginning with a modulus operator. I am searching for advice from experienced Lua programmers on how to program this and mainly how I can calculate the theoretically mathematical side of the problem.
Source of the question... (http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~pbo/ACM/archive/00209.html)
Gratitude will be shown to anyone who answers correctly.
Thank-you.

function get_left(max)
i = 0
j = 1
ls = {}
repeat
i = i + 1
j = j + i - 1
ls[i] = j
print (ls[i], " ls")
until j >= max
return ls
end
a = get_left(27)
(need to format that as code -.-)
if the point1 is between a[i] and a[i+1]
if then point2 is still between a[i] and a[i+1] it is on the same line
else if point2 is between a[i + n] and a[i + n + 1]
then if point2 is at a[i + n] + (a[i] - point1) + n + 1 its in a strait line right above it
else if point2 is at a[i + n] + (a[i] - point1) + n - 1 its in a strait line left above it
if for all points n or n*(-1) is equal the distance between the points is equal.
That is if I didn't make any logical errors and you probably have to check more for it to work properly.
This is more a mathematical question than lua I recommend adding a math tag to it.

Related

Write Recurrence for Given Function

I am trying to write the recurrence relation for the running time of the following function:
function G(n):
if n>0 then:
x=0
for i = 1 to n:
x = x + 1
G(n-1)
end if
What I came up with was:
T(n) = 1 if n <= 0
T(n) = T(n-1) + 1 if n>0
However I was told that this was incorrect and I don't know why or what the correct solution would be. Any help is greatly appreciated!
T(n) = 1 if n <= 0
T(n) = T(n-1) + O(n) if n>0
Instead of O(1), it should be O(n), because you are looping from 1 to n
If you solve the recurrence, the overall complexity will be O(n2)

Recurrence relation - equal roots of characteristic equation

I have the following problem:
Solve the following recurrence relation, simplifying your final answer
using 'O' notation.
f(0)=3
f(1)=12
f(n)=6f(n-1)-9f(n-2)
We know this is a homogeneous 2nd order relation so we write the characteristic equation: a^2-6a+9=0 and the solutions are a1,2=3.
The problem is when I replace these values I get:
f(n)=c1*3^n+c2*3^n
and using the 2 initial relations I have:
f(0)=c1+c2=3
f(1)=3(c1+c2)=12
which gives me that there no values such that c1 and c2 such that these 2 relation are true.
Am I doing something wrong? Is the way it should be solved different when it comes to identical roots for the characteristic equation?
You can't solve it this way, because your matrix A is not diagonalizable.
However, here is what you get if you use Jordan's normal form instead:
f(n) = 3^{n-1}(3n + 9)
The Jordan matrix and the basis (with notation from wikipedia + Octave) is:
J := [3,1;0,3]
P := [3,4;1,1]
such that PJP^{-1} = A, where
A := [6,-9;1,0]
is your recurrence matrix. Furthermore, the Jordan matrix is almost as good as a diagonal matrix for computing powers:
J^n = 3^(n-1) * [3,n;0,3].
The recurrence is then:
[f(n+1); f(n)] = A^n [12,3] = PJ^nP^-1[12,3] = (<whatever>, 3^(n-1)*(3n+9)).
Here a quick numerical check (Scala, but you can take whatever you want, Octave or I whatever you like):
scala> def f(n: Int): Int = { if (n == 0) 3 else if (n == 1) 12 else (6 * f(n-1) - 9 * f(n-2)) }
f: (n: Int)Int
scala> for (i <- 0 until 20) println(f(i))
3
12
45
162
567
1944
6561
21870
72171
236196
767637
2480058
7971615
25509168
81310473
258280326
817887699
^
scala> def explicit(n: Int): Int = (Math.pow(3, n -1) * (3 * n + 9)).toInt
explicit: (n: Int)Int
scala> for (i <- 0 until 20) println(explicit(i))
3
12
45
162
567
1944
6561
21870
72171
236196
767637
2480058
7971615
25509168
81310473
258280326
817887699

How can I fix this issue with my Mandelbrot fractal generator?

I've been working on a project that renders a Mandelbrot fractal. For those of you who know, it is generated by iterating through the following function where c is the point on a complex plane:
function f(c, z) return z^2 + c end
Iterating through that function produces the following fractal (ignore the color):
When you change the function to this, (z raised to the third power)
function f(c, z) return z^3 + c end
the fractal should render like so (again, the color doesn't matter):
(source: uoguelph.ca)
However, when I raised z to the power of 3, I got an image extremely similar as to when you raise z to the power of 2. How can I make the fractal render correctly? This is the code where the iterations are done: (the variables real and imaginary simply scale the screen from -2 to 2)
--loop through each pixel, col = column, row = row
local real = (col - zoomCol) * 4 / width
local imaginary = (row - zoomRow) * 4 / width
local z, c, iter = 0, 0, 0
while math.sqrt(z^2 + c^2) <= 2 and iter < maxIter do
local zNew = z^2 - c^2 + real
c = 2*z*c + imaginary
z = zNew
iter = iter + 1
end
So I recently decided to remake a Mandelbrot fractal generator, and it was MUCH more successful than my attempt last time, as my programming skills have increased with practice.
I decided to generalize the mandelbrot function using recursion for anyone who wants it. So, for example, you can do f(z, c) z^2 + c or f(z, c) z^3 + c
Here it is for anyone that may need it:
function raise(r, i, cr, ci, pow)
if pow == 1 then
return r + cr, i + ci
end
return raise(r*r-i*i, 2*r*i, cr, ci, pow - 1)
end
and it's used like this:
r, i = raise(r, i, CONSTANT_REAL_PART, CONSTANT_IMAG_PART, POWER)

confused about a pair of recursion relations

thanks in advance for your help in figuring this out. I'm taking an algorithms class and I'm stuck on something. According to the professor, the following holds true where C(1)=1 and n is a power of 2:
C(n) = 2 * C(n/2) + n resolves to C(n) = n * lg(n) + n
C(n) = 2 * C(n/2) + lg(n) resolves to C(n) = 3 * n - lg(n) - 2
The first one I completely grok. As I understand the form, what's stated is that C(n) resolves to two sub-problems, each of which requires n/2 work to solve, and an additional n amount of work to split and merge everything. As such, for every division of the problem, the constant 2 is increased by a factor of ^k (where k is the number of splits), the 2 in n/2 is also increased by a factor of ^k for much the same reason, and the last n is multiplied by a factor of k because each split creates a multiple of k extra work.
My confusion stems from the second relation. Given that the first and second relations are almost identical, why isn't the result of the second something like nlgn+(lgn^2)?
The general result is the Master Theorem
But in this specific case, you can work out the math for a power of 2:
C(2^k)
= 2 * C(2^(k-1)) + lg(2^k)
= 4 * C(2^(k-2)) + lg(2^k) + 2 * lg(2^(k-1))
= ... repeat ...
= 2^k * C(1) + sum (from i=1 to k) 2^(k-i) * lg 2^i
= 2^k + lg(2) * sum (from i=1 to k) 2^(i) * i
= 2^k - 2 + 2^k+1 - k
= 3 * 2^k - k - 2
= 3 * n - lg(n) - 2

Lua Separation Steering algorithm groups overlapping rooms into one corner

I'm trying to implement a dungeon generation algorithm (presented here and demo-ed here ) that involves generating a random number of cells that overlap each other. The cells then are pushed apart/separated and then connected. Now, the original poster/author described that he is using a Separation Steering Algorithm in order to uniformly distribute the cells over an area. I haven't had much experience with flocking algorithm and/or separation steering behavior, thus I turned to google for an explanation (and found this ). My implementation (based on the article last mentioned) is as follows:
function pdg:_computeSeparation(_agent)
local neighbours = 0
local rtWidth = #self._rooms
local v =
{
x = self._rooms[_agent].startX,
y = self._rooms[_agent].startY,
--velocity = 1,
}
for i = 1, rtWidth do
if _agent ~= i then
local distance = math.dist(self._rooms[_agent].startX,
self._rooms[_agent].startY,
self._rooms[i].startX,
self._rooms[i].startY)
if distance < 12 then
--print("Separating agent: ".._agent.." from agent: "..i.."")
v.x = (v.x + self._rooms[_agent].startX - self._rooms[i].startX) * distance
v.y = (v.y + self._rooms[_agent].startY - self._rooms[i].startY) * distance
neighbours = neighbours + 1
end
end
end
if neighbours == 0 then
return v
else
v.x = v.x / neighbours
v.y = v.y / neighbours
v.x = v.x * -1
v.y = v.y * -1
pdg:_normalize(v, 1)
return v
end
end
self._rooms is a table that contains the original X and Y position of the Room in the grid, along with it's width and height (endX, endY).
The problem is that, instead of tiddly arranging the cells on the grid, it takes the overlapping cells and moves them into an area that goes from 1,1 to distance+2, distance+2 (as seen in my video [youtube])
I'm trying to understand why this is happening.
In case it's needed, here I parse the grid table, separate and fill the cells after the separation:
function pdg:separate( )
if #self._rooms > 0 then
--print("NR ROOMS: "..#self._rooms.."")
-- reset the map to empty
for x = 1, self._pdgMapWidth do
for y = 1, self._pdgMapHeight do
self._pdgMap[x][y] = 4
end
end
-- now, we separate the rooms
local numRooms = #self._rooms
for i = 1, numRooms do
local v = pdg:_computeSeparation(i)
--we adjust the x and y positions of the items in the room table
self._rooms[i].startX = v.x
self._rooms[i].startY = v.y
--self._rooms[i].endX = v.x + self._rooms[i].endX
--self._rooms[i].endY = v.y + self._rooms[i].endY
end
-- we render them again
for i = 1, numRooms do
local px = math.abs( math.floor(self._rooms[i].startX) )
local py = math.abs( math.floor(self._rooms[i].startY) )
for k = self.rectMinWidth, self._rooms[i].endX do
for v = self.rectMinHeight, self._rooms[i].endY do
print("PX IS AT: "..px.." and k is: "..k.." and their sum is: "..px+k.."")
print("PY IS AT: "..py.." and v is: "..v.." and their sum is: "..py+v.."")
if k == self.rectMinWidth or
v == self.rectMinHeight or
k == self._rooms[i].endX or
v == self._rooms[i].endY then
self._pdgMap[px+k][py+v] = 1
else
self._pdgMap[px+k][py+v] = 2
end
end
end
end
end
I have implemented this generation algorithm as well, and I came across more or less the same issue. All of my rectangles ended up in the topleft corner.
My problem was that I was normalizing velocity vectors with zero length. If you normalize those, you divide by zero, resulting in NaN.
You can fix this by simply performing a check whether your velocity's length is zero before using it in any further calculations.
I hope this helps!
Uhm I know it's an old question, but I noticed something and maybe it can be useful to somebody, so...
I think there's a problem here:
v.x = (v.x + self._rooms[_agent].startX - self._rooms[i].startX) * distance
v.y = (v.y + self._rooms[_agent].startY - self._rooms[i].startY) * distance
Why do you multiply these equations by the distance?
"(self._rooms[_agent].startX - self._rooms[i].startX)" already contains the (squared) distance!
Plus, multiplying everything by "distance" you modify your previous results stored in v!
If at least you put the "v.x" outside the bracket, the result would just be higher, the normalize function will fix it. Although that's some useless calculation...
By the way I'm pretty sure the code should be like:
v.x = v.x + (self._rooms[_agent].startX - self._rooms[i].startX)
v.y = v.y + (self._rooms[_agent].startY - self._rooms[i].startY)
I'll make an example. Imagine you have your main agent in (0,0) and three neighbours in (0,-2), (-2,0) and (0,2). A separation steering behaviour would move the main agent toward the X axis, at a normalized direction of (1,0).
Let's focus only on the Y component of the result vector.
The math should be something like this:
--Iteration 1
v.y = 0 + ( 0 + 2 )
--Iteration 2
v.y = 2 + ( 0 - 0 )
--Iteration 3
v.y = 2 + ( 0 - 2 )
--Result
v.y = 0
Which is consistent with our theory.
This is what your code do:
(note that the distance is always 2)
--Iteration 1
v.y = ( 0 + 0 + 2 ) * 2
--Iteration 2
v.y = ( 4 + 0 - 0 ) * 2
--Iteration 3
v.y = ( 8 + 0 - 2 ) * 2
--Result
v.y = 12
And if I got the separation steering behaviour right this can't be correct.

Resources