Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 25, 2015 at 0:47 vote accept Abhinav
Sep 25, 2015 at 0:40 comment added Joseph O'Rourke >"their algo gives mr-convex hull.": I think your interpretation is correct.
Sep 25, 2015 at 0:06 comment added Abhinav Consider the two definitions. (1) Defn 2.4 in Ottmann et. al. of mr-convex hull (2) Defn of Rectilinear Convex Hull with fixed orientation given in A-G et al. which can be seen HERE Hence, for my example of 3 non-collinear points, both the definitions shall give the mr-convex hull. Because the r-convex hull of three non-collinear points can only be the three points themselves. So my confusion is : Is A-G et al. talking about r-convex hull but actually their algo gives mr-convex hull. Am I right?
Sep 24, 2015 at 23:42 comment added Joseph O'Rourke @Abhinav: I don't see your confusion. They (A-G et al.) define "The 'Rectilinear Convex Hull' of P with orientation θ [as] the set" etc. And the remainder of their paper seems clear.
Sep 24, 2015 at 23:40 comment added Abhinav A-G et al. paper says on its second page : " Throughout this paper, we will use the maximal ortho-convex , or mr-convex hull stated by Ottmann et al." But the paper goes on giving definition of Rectilinear Convex Hull as [R-Hull of Point Set P] = [R^{2} - Union(Quadrants Free of Point Set)]. Does it mean, the algorithm discussed in Ottmann et. al. and A-G et al. gives the mr-convex hull of a point set and not the r-convex hull of the point set? Because using the definition of A-G et al., for three non-collinear points, I can only get the mr-convex hull and not the r-convex hull of the points.
Sep 24, 2015 at 23:16 history edited Joseph O'Rourke CC BY-SA 3.0
added 9 characters in body
Sep 24, 2015 at 23:09 history edited Joseph O'Rourke CC BY-SA 3.0
added 9 characters in body
Sep 24, 2015 at 23:00 history answered Joseph O'Rourke CC BY-SA 3.0