Orientation of 4 + 1 lines in $mathbb{R}^3$.











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












I'm working on a 3D algorithm that at some point establishes orientation of two lines - the same way one would do using the triple product. The way those lines are described, however, makes the computation much more complicated: the first line (let's call it line $M$) is given as a pair of points (let's say $M_a$ and $M_b$) that $M$ goes through. The second line (let's say $L$) is a line that intersects four line segments given in the form of four pairs of points. In other words, there is a line segment that goes from a point $L_{1a}$ to point $L_{1b}$, another segment that goes from point $L_{2a}$ to point $L_{2b}$, another from $L_{3a}$ to $L_{3b}$ and the last one from $L_{4a}$ to $L_{4b}$. All the points are provided (a priori). The line that intersects those four segments is our line $L$. It is guaranteed that there exists exactly one line $L$ that goes through all four segments (e.g. never three of them are coplanar), so there's no need to check if a particular set of given points has a solution.



The question is: do lines $M$ and $L$ intersect, or are they clockwise-skewed, or counter-clockwise-skewed?



My solution goes as follows: the first three of $L$ line segments form a hyperboloid of one sheet or hyperbolic paraboloid (or see *). The fourth one intersects this surface in some point C. If we intersect the first line segment $overline{L_{1a}L_{1b}}$ with a plane that goes through points $L_{2a}$, $L_{2b}$, $C$ or $L_{3a}$, $L_{3b}$, $C$, we get another point $D$. The final solution is a triple product of $([D - C][M_b - M_a][M_a - C])$ - equals zero if $L$ and $M$ intersect, greater than zero if they are cw-skewed, and negative if ccw-skewed.



This solution is impractical from the computational point of view. It's hard to be parallelized and performs extremely large amount of dot products, cross products, additions, negations, plus one inversion and a square root. The last of mentioned operations is not even available on the architecture I'm targeting with the algorithm.



Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that there exists a solution that does not need to perform all these intermediate calculations, intersection points and square root at all. For example, just like the triple product is a determinant of some matrix built on top of points defining two lines, maybe there's a matrix that can be built from those 10 points and again determinant could be used to establish the final orientation?



Every hint kindly appreciated.



$*$ - if any two of $L$ segments intersect, then this surface degrades to a plane, and if there are two intersections, then it degrades even more - directly to two points: C and D.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    I'm working on a 3D algorithm that at some point establishes orientation of two lines - the same way one would do using the triple product. The way those lines are described, however, makes the computation much more complicated: the first line (let's call it line $M$) is given as a pair of points (let's say $M_a$ and $M_b$) that $M$ goes through. The second line (let's say $L$) is a line that intersects four line segments given in the form of four pairs of points. In other words, there is a line segment that goes from a point $L_{1a}$ to point $L_{1b}$, another segment that goes from point $L_{2a}$ to point $L_{2b}$, another from $L_{3a}$ to $L_{3b}$ and the last one from $L_{4a}$ to $L_{4b}$. All the points are provided (a priori). The line that intersects those four segments is our line $L$. It is guaranteed that there exists exactly one line $L$ that goes through all four segments (e.g. never three of them are coplanar), so there's no need to check if a particular set of given points has a solution.



    The question is: do lines $M$ and $L$ intersect, or are they clockwise-skewed, or counter-clockwise-skewed?



    My solution goes as follows: the first three of $L$ line segments form a hyperboloid of one sheet or hyperbolic paraboloid (or see *). The fourth one intersects this surface in some point C. If we intersect the first line segment $overline{L_{1a}L_{1b}}$ with a plane that goes through points $L_{2a}$, $L_{2b}$, $C$ or $L_{3a}$, $L_{3b}$, $C$, we get another point $D$. The final solution is a triple product of $([D - C][M_b - M_a][M_a - C])$ - equals zero if $L$ and $M$ intersect, greater than zero if they are cw-skewed, and negative if ccw-skewed.



    This solution is impractical from the computational point of view. It's hard to be parallelized and performs extremely large amount of dot products, cross products, additions, negations, plus one inversion and a square root. The last of mentioned operations is not even available on the architecture I'm targeting with the algorithm.



    Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that there exists a solution that does not need to perform all these intermediate calculations, intersection points and square root at all. For example, just like the triple product is a determinant of some matrix built on top of points defining two lines, maybe there's a matrix that can be built from those 10 points and again determinant could be used to establish the final orientation?



    Every hint kindly appreciated.



    $*$ - if any two of $L$ segments intersect, then this surface degrades to a plane, and if there are two intersections, then it degrades even more - directly to two points: C and D.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      I'm working on a 3D algorithm that at some point establishes orientation of two lines - the same way one would do using the triple product. The way those lines are described, however, makes the computation much more complicated: the first line (let's call it line $M$) is given as a pair of points (let's say $M_a$ and $M_b$) that $M$ goes through. The second line (let's say $L$) is a line that intersects four line segments given in the form of four pairs of points. In other words, there is a line segment that goes from a point $L_{1a}$ to point $L_{1b}$, another segment that goes from point $L_{2a}$ to point $L_{2b}$, another from $L_{3a}$ to $L_{3b}$ and the last one from $L_{4a}$ to $L_{4b}$. All the points are provided (a priori). The line that intersects those four segments is our line $L$. It is guaranteed that there exists exactly one line $L$ that goes through all four segments (e.g. never three of them are coplanar), so there's no need to check if a particular set of given points has a solution.



      The question is: do lines $M$ and $L$ intersect, or are they clockwise-skewed, or counter-clockwise-skewed?



      My solution goes as follows: the first three of $L$ line segments form a hyperboloid of one sheet or hyperbolic paraboloid (or see *). The fourth one intersects this surface in some point C. If we intersect the first line segment $overline{L_{1a}L_{1b}}$ with a plane that goes through points $L_{2a}$, $L_{2b}$, $C$ or $L_{3a}$, $L_{3b}$, $C$, we get another point $D$. The final solution is a triple product of $([D - C][M_b - M_a][M_a - C])$ - equals zero if $L$ and $M$ intersect, greater than zero if they are cw-skewed, and negative if ccw-skewed.



      This solution is impractical from the computational point of view. It's hard to be parallelized and performs extremely large amount of dot products, cross products, additions, negations, plus one inversion and a square root. The last of mentioned operations is not even available on the architecture I'm targeting with the algorithm.



      Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that there exists a solution that does not need to perform all these intermediate calculations, intersection points and square root at all. For example, just like the triple product is a determinant of some matrix built on top of points defining two lines, maybe there's a matrix that can be built from those 10 points and again determinant could be used to establish the final orientation?



      Every hint kindly appreciated.



      $*$ - if any two of $L$ segments intersect, then this surface degrades to a plane, and if there are two intersections, then it degrades even more - directly to two points: C and D.










      share|cite|improve this question















      I'm working on a 3D algorithm that at some point establishes orientation of two lines - the same way one would do using the triple product. The way those lines are described, however, makes the computation much more complicated: the first line (let's call it line $M$) is given as a pair of points (let's say $M_a$ and $M_b$) that $M$ goes through. The second line (let's say $L$) is a line that intersects four line segments given in the form of four pairs of points. In other words, there is a line segment that goes from a point $L_{1a}$ to point $L_{1b}$, another segment that goes from point $L_{2a}$ to point $L_{2b}$, another from $L_{3a}$ to $L_{3b}$ and the last one from $L_{4a}$ to $L_{4b}$. All the points are provided (a priori). The line that intersects those four segments is our line $L$. It is guaranteed that there exists exactly one line $L$ that goes through all four segments (e.g. never three of them are coplanar), so there's no need to check if a particular set of given points has a solution.



      The question is: do lines $M$ and $L$ intersect, or are they clockwise-skewed, or counter-clockwise-skewed?



      My solution goes as follows: the first three of $L$ line segments form a hyperboloid of one sheet or hyperbolic paraboloid (or see *). The fourth one intersects this surface in some point C. If we intersect the first line segment $overline{L_{1a}L_{1b}}$ with a plane that goes through points $L_{2a}$, $L_{2b}$, $C$ or $L_{3a}$, $L_{3b}$, $C$, we get another point $D$. The final solution is a triple product of $([D - C][M_b - M_a][M_a - C])$ - equals zero if $L$ and $M$ intersect, greater than zero if they are cw-skewed, and negative if ccw-skewed.



      This solution is impractical from the computational point of view. It's hard to be parallelized and performs extremely large amount of dot products, cross products, additions, negations, plus one inversion and a square root. The last of mentioned operations is not even available on the architecture I'm targeting with the algorithm.



      Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that there exists a solution that does not need to perform all these intermediate calculations, intersection points and square root at all. For example, just like the triple product is a determinant of some matrix built on top of points defining two lines, maybe there's a matrix that can be built from those 10 points and again determinant could be used to establish the final orientation?



      Every hint kindly appreciated.



      $*$ - if any two of $L$ segments intersect, then this surface degrades to a plane, and if there are two intersections, then it degrades even more - directly to two points: C and D.







      linear-algebra matrices geometry determinant orientation






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 20 at 18:06

























      asked Nov 20 at 16:12









      abl

      216




      216



























          active

          oldest

          votes











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006514%2forientation-of-4-1-lines-in-mathbbr3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown






























          active

          oldest

          votes













          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes
















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006514%2forientation-of-4-1-lines-in-mathbbr3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Ellipse (mathématiques)

          Quarter-circle Tiles

          Mont Emei