632 research outputs found
Sweeping an oval to a vanishing point
Given a convex region in the plane, and a sweep-line as a tool, what is best
way to reduce the region to a single point by a sequence of sweeps? The problem
of sweeping points by orthogonal sweeps was first studied in [2]. Here we
consider the following \emph{slanted} variant of sweeping recently introduced
in [1]: In a single sweep, the sweep-line is placed at a start position
somewhere in the plane, then moved continuously according to a sweep vector
(not necessarily orthogonal to the sweep-line) to another parallel end
position, and then lifted from the plane. The cost of a sequence of sweeps is
the sum of the lengths of the sweep vectors. The (optimal) sweeping cost of a
region is the infimum of the costs over all finite sweeping sequences for that
region. An optimal sweeping sequence for a region is one with a minimum total
cost, if it exists. Another parameter of interest is the number of sweeps.
We show that there exist convex regions for which the optimal sweeping cost
cannot be attained by two sweeps. This disproves a conjecture of Bousany,
Karker, O'Rourke, and Sparaco stating that two sweeps (with vectors along the
two adjacent sides of a minimum-perimeter enclosing parallelogram) always
suffice [1]. Moreover, we conjecture that for some convex regions, no finite
sweeping sequence is optimal. On the other hand, we show that both the 2-sweep
algorithm based on minimum-perimeter enclosing rectangle and the 2-sweep
algorithm based on minimum-perimeter enclosing parallelogram achieve a approximation in this sweeping model.Comment: 9 pages, 4 figure
The opaque square
The problem of finding small sets that block every line passing through a
unit square was first considered by Mazurkiewicz in 1916. We call such a set
{\em opaque} or a {\em barrier} for the square. The shortest known barrier has
length . The current best lower
bound for the length of a (not necessarily connected) barrier is , as
established by Jones about 50 years ago. No better lower bound is known even if
the barrier is restricted to lie in the square or in its close vicinity. Under
a suitable locality assumption, we replace this lower bound by ,
which represents the first, albeit small, step in a long time toward finding
the length of the shortest barrier. A sharper bound is obtained for interior
barriers: the length of any interior barrier for the unit square is at least . Two of the key elements in our proofs are: (i) formulas established
by Sylvester for the measure of all lines that meet two disjoint planar convex
bodies, and (ii) a procedure for detecting lines that are witness to the
invalidity of a short bogus barrier for the square.Comment: 23 pages, 8 figure
- β¦