Skip to main content

graphics - On drilling holes with minimal redundancy (and with colors!)


The old Mathematica package Graphics`Shapes` featured the function PerforatePolygons[], which drilled a hole in any Polygon[] primitive present in a Graphics3D[] object. One would usually use it on the output of ParametricPlot3D[] or Polyhedron[] from the Graphics`Polyhedra` package, like so:


objects with holes


Here is a slightly simplified implementation of PerforatePolygons[] which I used in generating the pictures above:


perforateaux[points_, ratio_] := Block[{test = TrueQ[First[points] == Last[points]],
center, q},
center = Mean[If[test, Most, Identity][points]]; q = 1 - 2 Boole[test];

MapThread[Polygon[Join[#1, Reverse[#2]]] &,
Partition[#, 2, 1, {1, q}] & /@ {points, (center + ratio (# - center)) & /@ points}]]

PerforatePolygons[shape_, ratio_: 0.5] :=
shape /. Polygon[p_] :> perforateaux[p, ratio]

(I elected to remove the additional EdgeForm[] directive in the original implementation so that the images clearly show what is going on with each polygon. A proper implementation would have it, of course.)


Nowadays, both PolyhedronData[] and ParametricPlot3D[] return GraphicsComplex[] objects within Graphics3D[]. The big benefit of this new representation, among other things, is that it minimizes redundant storage; instead of having a point being stored on three or four Polygon[] primitives, all the points in the object are stored in the first component of GraphicsComplex[], and the Polygon[] objects only need to store the index corresponding to the point they need. For instance, compare the output of PolyhedronData["Tetrahedron", "Faces"] and Normal[PolyhedronData["Tetrahedron", "Faces"]].


The problem with this efficient representation is that it no longer works nicely with polygon replacement rules like the one used by PerforatePolygons[]. Of course, there is the obvious solution of applying Normal[] to any GraphicsComplex[] object generated before applying PerforatePolygons[], but you lose out on the storage efficiency afforded by GraphicsComplex[].


Here now is my question:




Is it possible to improve PerforatePolygons[] so that it works onGraphicsComplex[] objects, with the output still retaining the GraphicsComplex[] characteristic of storage with minimum redundancy?





If the question above is not sufficiently challenging for you, consider the following wrinkle.


Polygon[] objects in Mathematica are currently able to take a VertexColors option that sets how the things are colored, with proper color interpolation within the polygon.



Is it possible to implement a version of PerforatePolygons[] that does its best to have the new polygons inherit the coloring used by the old polygons?



As an example of what is expected:



colored polygon, with and without hole


The improved PerforatePolygons[] should be able to produce an image like the one on the right from the one on the left. For triangular polygons, simple bilinear interpolation works nicely, but how about more complicated polygon objects? Again, it is important that a GraphicsComplex[] object still be one after the perforation.



Answer



Here's a start:


perforateaux[pts_, ratio_, indices : {__Integer}] :=
Module[
{vertices, center, newPts, ind},
vertices = Replace[indices, {{p_, b___, p_} :> {p, b}}];
center = Mean[pts[[vertices]]];
newPts = ratio (# - center) + center & /@ pts[[ vertices]];

ind = MapThread[Flatten[{#1, Reverse[#2]}] &,
{Partition[vertices, 2, 1, {1, 1}],
Partition[Range[Length[newPts]] + Length[pts], 2, 1, {1, 1}]}];
{Join[pts, newPts], ind}];

perforateaux[pts_, ratio_, indices : {{__Integer} ..}] :=
{#[[1]], Flatten[#[[2, 1]], 1]} &@
Reap[Fold[(Sow[#2]; #1) &@@ perforateaux[#, ratio, #2] &, pts, indices]]

PerforatePolygons[graphics3D_, ratio_: 0.5] :=

graphics3D /. GraphicsComplex[pts_, shape_, opt___] :>
Module[{newshapes},
newshapes = Flatten[Cases[{shape}, Polygon[a_, b___] :>
(If[Depth[a] == 2, {a}, a]), Infinity], 1];
GraphicsComplex[#1, Polygon[#2]] & @@ perforateaux[pts, ratio, newshapes, opt]]

Example


PerforatePolygons[PolyhedronData["Dodecahedron"]]

Mathematica graphics




Here's a way to preserve the colouring in a plot. This assumes that the plot is of the form Graphics3D[...GraphicsComplex[pts, {shapes}, ... , VertexColors -> colours, ...], ... ]. I should note that it's not very fast, so I think there is still room for optimisation of the code.


newCols[pts_, collst_, ratio_] := Module[{normal, center, colc},
center = Mean[pts];
colc = Blend[collst, Norm[# - center] & /@ pts];
Blend[{colc, #}, ratio] & /@ collst]

perforateauxCol[pts_, collst_, ratio_, indices : {__Integer}] :=
Module[
{vertices, center, newPts, ind, newcol},

vertices = Replace[indices, {{p_, b___, p_} :> {p, b}}];
center = Mean[pts[[vertices]]];
newPts = ratio (# - center) + center & /@ pts[[ vertices]];
newcol = newCols[pts[[vertices]], collst[[vertices]], ratio];
ind = MapThread[Flatten[{##}] &,
{Partition[vertices, 2, 1, {1, 1}],
Reverse /@
Partition[Range[Length[newPts]] + Length[pts], 2,
1, {1, 1}]}];
{Join[pts, newPts], Join[collst, newcol], ind}];


perforateauxCol[pts_, collst_, ratio_,
indices : {{__Integer} ..}] :=
{#[[1, 1]], #[[1, 2]],
Flatten[#[[2, 1]], 1]} &@
Reap[Fold[(Sow[#[[3]]]; #[[{1,
2}]]) &@(perforateauxCol[#[[1]], #[[2]],
ratio, #2]) &, {pts, collst}, indices]]

PerforatePolygonsCol[graphics3D_, ratio_: 0.5] := graphics3D /.

GraphicsComplex[pts_, shape_, opt1___, VertexColors -> collst_,
opt2___] :>
Module[{newshapes},
newshapes = Flatten[Cases[{shape}, Polygon[a_, b___] :>
(If[Depth[a] == 2, {a}, a]), Infinity], 1];
GraphicsComplex[#1, Polygon[#3], opt1, VertexColors -> #2,
opt2] & @@
perforateauxCol[N[pts],
If[Head[collst] === List, N[RGBColor @@@ collst], N[collst]],
ratio, newshapes]]


Example


pl = Plot3D[Sin[x^2 - 4 Pi y (1 - y)], {x, 0, Pi}, {y, 0, 1}, 
PlotPoints -> 20, MaxRecursion -> 1, Mesh -> All,
ColorFunction -> (ColorData["GrayYellowTones"][#3] &)]

Mathematica graphics


With holes


pl1 = PerforatePolygonsCol[pl]


Mathematica graphics


To remove the edges you can do something like


Show[pl1 /. a_Polygon :> {EdgeForm[], a}]

Mathematica graphics


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...