Skip to main content

bugs - RegionMeasure is wrong for simple 1D Path


Bug introduced in 11.1




Take the simple path defined by a line through a set of points


pts = {{0, 0}, {0, 1.5}, {0.05, 1.5}, {0.05, 0.5}, {0.1, 0.5}, {0.1,  1.5},
{0.15, 1.5}, {0.15, 0.5}, {0.2, 0.5}, {0.2, 1.5}, {0.25, 1.5}, {0.25, 0.5},
{0.3, 0.5}, {0.3, 1.5}, {0.35, 1.5}, {0.35, 0}}


reg = Line[pts];

This can be visualized using Graphics


Graphics[{Blue, reg}, Axes -> True]

image


Both RegionMeasure and ArcLength should give us the length of the line and in fact it does give us a number


RegionMeasure@reg
(* 7.85 *)

ArcLength@reg
(* 7.85 *)

This is wrong however!


This gives the sequence of the individual arc lengths:


FoldPairList[{Abs@Total[#2 - #1], #2} &, {0, 0}, pts]
(* {0., 1.5, 0.05, 1., 0.05, 1., 0.05, 1., 0.05, 1., 0.05, 1., 0.05, 1., 0.05, 1.5} *)

The sum of this sequence is $9.35$ not $7.85$.


Sanity check: Count the line segments on screen. There are two segments of length $1.5$, seven segments of length $0.05$, and six segments of length $1$. So in total: $2\times1.5 + 7\times0.05 + 6\times1 = 9.35$





I use Mathematica 11.1.1.0 on Mac OS 10.12.6




Edit in response to comments:


When I copy and paste pts from SE I also get $9.35$. Try the following which I used to generate pts in the first place:


pts2 = AnglePath[{{1.5, 90.°}, {0.05, -90.°}, {1, -90.°}, {0.05, 90.°}, {1, 90.°},
{0.05, -90.°}, {1, -90.°},{0.05, 90.°}, {1, 90.°}, {0.05, -90.°}, {1, -90.°},
{0.05, 90.°}, {1, 90.°}, {0.05, -90.°}, {1.5, -90.°}}] //Chop

and check that pts and pts2 are in fact equal



pts == pts2
(* True *)

Now try RegionMeasure@Line@pts2. For me this gives $7.85$. Seems the culprit is AnglePath.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.