Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Equation of a Square?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
23 replies to this topic

#1 mrbig   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:02 PM

This is going to be quite a strange question... Does a _square_ have an equation? You know, an equation for the points on a square? For a circle there's r^2 = dx^2 + dy^2, but what would a square equation look like?

Sponsor:

#2 haphazardlynamed   Members   -  Reputation: 340

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:51 PM

disjointed
a set of separate equations with some arbitrary semantics that indicate when you need to switch from one to the next

#3 erissian   Members   -  Reputation: 722

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:52 PM

It's discontinuous (it has corners) and isn't a function, so it's not as straight forward, but thinking about it, this seems like it might work:

x = |d|, y = |d|, for all x,y ≤ |d|

#4 nmi   Members   -  Reputation: 978

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 January 2007 - 10:12 PM

you mean something like
r = max(abs(x), abs(y))

#5 Jesper T   Members   -  Reputation: 322

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 January 2007 - 11:10 PM

If you want to draw the square I guess a useful way would be to describe it as a linear combination of two perpendicular unit vectors.

For example, with the two vectors

A = (0, -1, 0)
B = (1, 0, 0)

Any point in the square is given by

P = Ar + Bs

Where r, s <= l (and l = length of the sides of the square).

If you want to describe the edge you just fix either r or s at 0 or l and you have a line equation.

A and B doesn't have to be unit vectors though, but it makes it easier to set the size of the square if they are.

#6 0BZEN   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2016

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2007 - 04:12 AM

Equation of a triangle

P in triangle (A, B, C) :

P = A + t * (B - A) + u * (C - A)
0 <= t <= 1,
0 <= u <= 1,
0 <= (t+u) <= 1,

let's say a parallelogram, which is like, two triangles... I am not sure waht would be the constraints on that.

0 <= (t+u) <= 2 maybe?




#7 0BZEN   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2016

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2007 - 04:22 AM

another one :)

say you have square (x0, y0)-(x1, y1) (x0 < x1, y0 < y1)

x = min(max(x, x0), x1)
y = max(min(y, y0), y1)

#8 Zipster   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 689

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2007 - 04:36 AM

Actually, you just remove the the sum restriction u + t ≤ 1 completely to get the full quadrilateral (keep 0 ≤ u/t ≤ 1). But it describes the entire inner area. You would have more logic to get just the edges.

#9 ToohrVyk   Members   -  Reputation: 1591

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2007 - 05:28 AM

As nmi said, the equation for a zero-centered axis-aligned square of edge 2r is:

max(|x|,|y|) = r

You may apply a transform first to rotate, move or scale the square.

#10 TheAdmiral   Members   -  Reputation: 1118

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2007 - 06:00 AM

Quote:
Original post by erissian
It's discontinuous (it has corners)

Not quite. A square is continuous (there are certainly no gaps), but it isn't smooth. If one were to describe it piecewise-implicitly or parametrically, then it's the first derivatives (and hence all that follow) that would be discontinuous. </unnecessary aside>

Admiral

#11 0BZEN   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2016

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2007 - 07:48 AM

Quote:
Original post by Zipster
Actually, you just remove the the sum restriction u + t ≤ 1 completely to get the full quadrilateral (keep 0 ≤ u/t ≤ 1). But it describes the entire inner area. You would have more logic to get just the edges.


true, which is the same :)

#12 erissian   Members   -  Reputation: 722

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2007 - 08:41 AM

Quote:
Original post by TheAdmiral
Quote:
Original post by erissian
It's discontinuous (it has corners)

Not quite. A square is continuous (there are certainly no gaps), but it isn't smooth. If one were to describe it piecewise-implicitly or parametrically, then it's the first derivatives (and hence all that follow) that would be discontinuous. </unnecessary aside>

Admiral


Ah, true. My schooling involved heavy use of mathematics and major abuse of it's terminology. :)

#13 Mastaba   Members   -  Reputation: 757

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2007 - 09:11 AM

You could actually get away with using the equation of a superellipse to describe a square, if you use an exponent that is sufficiently high enough such that the deviation from a true square is less than the resolution of the square.

#14 Ultimape   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 01 February 2007 - 04:59 PM

square waves are really only a bunch (an infinate bunch) of sine waves added together...

potentially, a square, is really a bunch of wobbly sine waves on a circular spread!

maybe, maybe.

#15 Merlz   Members   -  Reputation: 163

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 01 February 2007 - 05:08 PM

Here's another one, just for fun:

abs(x) + abs(y) <= 1

Although this one is at 45 degrees rotation to the axis, it's of max radius 1 :-)

#16 iMalc   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2306

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 01 February 2007 - 05:48 PM

Quote:
Original post by Merlz
Here's another one, just for fun:

abs(x) + abs(y) <= 1

Although this one is at 45 degrees rotation to the axis, it's of max radius 1 :-)
That's a filled square though (or a filled diamond if you prefer)

A more generic unfilled version of that would be:
abs(x) + abs(y) = r

Of course you could probably rotate that by 45 degrees, which would probably look something like this:

abs(x*sin(45)+y*cos(45)) + abs(x*cos(45)-y*sin(45)) = r

But I'm probably just getting carried away, as nmi has already posted the simplest solution.

#17 Christer Ericson   Members   -  Reputation: 819

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 01 February 2007 - 06:46 PM

Quote:
Original post by iMalc
A more generic unfilled version of that would be:
abs(x) + abs(y) = r

Of course you could probably rotate that by 45 degrees, which would probably look something like this:

abs(x*sin(45)+y*cos(45)) + abs(x*cos(45)-y*sin(45)) = r
Try:

abs(x + y) + abs(x - y) = r


#18 mbaitoff   Members   -  Reputation: 126

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 13 February 2007 - 04:35 PM

Equation of a sphere is x^2+y^2=r^2. Equation of a very rounded square is x^4+y^4=r^4. Equation of a square with decreasing roundings is x^p+y^p=r^p, (increasing p). The "limit" of this equation with p->oo is an equation of a square. This "limit" is L_inf metric, max(|x|,|y|).

#19 Ruleroftherealm   Members   -  Reputation: 96

Like
-4Likes
Like

Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:42 AM

I don't understand why all these people are answering so damn complicated... the equation for the (unit) square is abs(x)+abs(y)=1

#20 knighty   Members   -  Reputation: 309

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:18 PM

It also have parametric representations:
- Square:
x=infcos(t);
y=infsin(t);
(infPI=4):wink:

-Diamond:
x=abscos(t);
y=abssin(t);
(absPI=2*sqrt(2))

where:
sawtooth(x){
   abs((x-4*floor(0.25*x))-2)-1
}
infcos(x){
   min(1,max(-1,sawtooth(0.5*x)*2))
}
infsin(x){
   infcos(x-2)
}
abscos(x){
   x*=sqrt(2)*0.5;
   sawtooth(x)
}
abssin(x){
   x*=sqrt(2)*0.5;
   sawtooth(x-1)
}





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS