I want to traverse all the elements in the set Q = [0, 2^16) in a non sequential manner. To do so I need a function f(x) Q --> Q which gives the order in which the set will be sorted. for example:
f(0) = 2345
f(1) = 4364
f(2) = 24
(...)
To recover the order I would need the inverse function f'(x) Q --> Q which would output:
f(2345) = 0
f(4364) = 1
f(24) = 2
(...)
The function must be bijective, for each element of Q the function uniquely maps to another element of Q.
How can I generate such a function or are there any know functions that do this?
EDIT: In the following answer, f(x) is "what comes after x", not "what goes in position x". For example, if your first number is 5, then f(5) is the next element, not f(1). In retrospect, you probably thought of f(x) as "what goes in position x". The function defined in this answer is much weaker if used as "what goes in position x".
Linear congruential generators fit your needs.
A linear congruential generator is defined by the equation
f(x) = a*x+c (mod m)
for some constants a, c, and m. In this case, m = 65536.
An LCG has full period (the property you want) if the following properties hold:
c and m are relatively prime.
a-1 is divisible by all prime factors of m.
If m is a multiple of 4, a-1 is a multiple of 4.
We'll go with a = 5, c = 1.
To invert an LCG, we solve for f(x) in terms of x:
x = (a^-1)*(f(x) - c) (mod m)
We can find the inverse of 5 mod 65536 by the extended Euclidean algorithm, or since we just need this one computation, we can plug it into Wolfram Alpha. The result is 52429.
Thus, we have
f(x) = (5*x + 1) % 65536
f^-1(x) = (52429 * (x - 1)) % 65536
There's many approaches to solving this.
Since your set size is small, the requirement for generating the function and its inverse can simply be done via memory lookup. So once you choose your permutation, you can store the forward and reverse directions in lookup tables.
One approach to creating a permutation is mapping out all elements in an array and then randomly swapping them "enough" times. C code:
int f[PERM_SIZE], inv_f[PERM_SIZE];
int i;
// start out with identity permutation
for (i=0; i < PERM_SIZE; ++i) {
f[i] = i;
inv_f[i] = i;
}
// seed your random number generator
srand(SEED);
// look "enough" times, where we choose "enough" = size of array
for (i=0; i < PERM_SIZE; ++i) {
int j, k;
j = rand()%PERM_SIZE;
k = rand()%PERM_SIZE;
swap( &f[i], &f[j] );
}
// create inverse of f
for (i=0; i < PERM_SIZE; ++i)
inv_f[f[i]] = i;
Enjoy
Which is the best way to store a symmetric matrix in memory?
It would be good to save half of the space without compromising speed and complexity of the structure too much. This is a language-agnostic question but if you need to make some assumptions just assume it's a good old plain programming language like C or C++..
It seems a thing that has a sense just if there is a way to keep things simple or just when the matrix itself is really big, am I right?
Just for the sake of formality I mean that this assertion is always true for the data I want to store
matrix[x][y] == matrix[y][x]
Here is a good method to store a symmetric matrix, it requires only N(N+1)/2 memory:
int fromMatrixToVector(int i, int j, int N)
{
if (i <= j)
return i * N - (i - 1) * i / 2 + j - i;
else
return j * N - (j - 1) * j / 2 + i - j;
}
For some triangular matrix
0 1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8
9
1D representation (stored in std::vector, for example) looks like as follows:
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
And call fromMatrixToVector(1, 2, 4) returns 5, so the matrix data is vector[5] -> 5.
For more information see http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/algorithms/general/article.php/c11211/TIP-Half-Size-Triangular-Matrix.htm
I find that many high performance packages just store the whole matrix, but then only read the upper triangle or lower triangle. They might then use the additional space for storing temporary data during the computation.
However if storage is really an issue then just store the n(n+1)/2 elements making the upper triangle in a one-dimensional array. If that makes access complicated for you, just define a set of helper functions.
In C to access a matrix matA you could define a macro:
#define A(i,j, dim) ((i <= j)?matA[i*dim + j]:matA[j*dim + i])
then you can access your array nearly normally.
Well I would try a triangular matrix, like this:
int[][] sym = new int[rows][];
for( int i = 0; i < cols; ++i ) {
sym=new int[i+1];
}
But then you wil have to face the problem when someone wants to access the "other side". Eg he wants to access [0][10] but in your case this val is stored in[10][0] (assuming 10x10).
The probably "best" way is the lazy one - dont do anything until the user requests. So you could load the specific row if the user types somethin like print(matrix[4]).
If you want to use a one dimensional array the code would look something like this:
int[] new matrix[(rows * (rows + 1 )) >> 1];
int z;
matrix[ ( ( z = ( x < y ? y : x ) ) * ( z + 1 ) >> 1 ) + ( y < x ? y : x ) ] = yourValue;
You can get rid of the multiplications if you create an additional look-up table:
int[] new matrix[(rows * (rows + 1 )) >> 1];
int[] lookup[rows];
for ( int i= 0; i < rows; i++)
{
lookup[i] = (i * (i+1)) >> 1;
}
matrix[ lookup[ x < y ? y : x ] + ( x < y ? x : y ) ] = yourValue;
If you're using something that supports operator overloading (e.g. C++), it's pretty easy to handle this transparently. Just create a matrix class that checks the two subscripts, and if the second is greater than the first, swap them:
template <class T>
class sym_matrix {
std::vector<std::vector<T> > data;
public:
T operator()(int x, int y) {
if (y>x)
return data[y][x];
else
return data[x][y];
}
};
For the moment I've skipped over everything else, and just covered the subscripting. In reality, to handle use as both an lvalue and an rvalue correctly, you'll typically want to return a proxy instead of a T directly. You'll want a ctor that creates data as a triangle (i.e., for an NxN matrix, the first row will have N elements, the second N-1, and so on -- or, equivalantly 1, 2, ...N). You might also consider creating data as a single vector -- you have to compute the correct offset into it, but that's not terribly difficult, and it will use a bit less memory, run a bit faster, etc. I'd use the simple code for the first version, and optimize later if necessary.
You could use a staggered array (or whatever they're called) if your language supports it, and when x < y, switch the position of x and y. So...
Pseudocode (somewhat Python style, but not really) for an n x n matrix:
matrix[n][]
for i from 0 to n-1:
matrix[i] = some_value_type[i + 1]
[next, assign values to the elements of the half-matrix]
And then when referring to values....
if x < y:
return matrix[y][x]
else:
return matrix[x][y]
Edit: Since it appears nobody is reading the original question this links to, let me bring in a synopsis of it here.
The original problem, as asked by someone else, was that, given a large number of values, where the sum would exceed what a data type of Double would hold, how can one calculate the average of those values.
There was several answers that said to calculate in sets, like taking 50 and 50 numbers, and calculating the average inside those sets, and then finally take the average of all those sets and combine those to get the final average value.
My position was that unless you can guarantee that all those values can be split into a number of equally sized sets, you cannot use this approach. Someone dared me to ask the question here, in order to provide the answer, so here it is.
Basically, given an arbitrary number of values, where:
I know the number of values beforehand (but again, how would your answer change if you didn't?`)
I cannot gather up all the numbers, nor can I sum them (the sum will be too big for a normal data type in your programming language)
how can I calculate the average?
The rest of the question here outlines how, and the problems with, the approach to split into equally sized sets, but I'd really just like to know how you can do it.
Note that I know perfectly well enough math to know that in math theory terms, calculating the sum of A[1..N]/N will give me the average, let's assume that there are reasons that it isn't just as simple, and I need to split up the workload, and that the number of values isn't necessarily going to be divisable by 3, 7, 50, 1000 or whatever.
In other words, the solution I'm after will have to be general.
From this question:
What is a good solution for calculating an average where the sum of all values exceeds a double’s limits?
my position was that splitting the workload up into sets is no good, unless you can ensure that the size of those sets are equal.
Edit: The original question was about the upper limit that a particular data type could hold, and since he was summing up a lot of numbers (count that was given as example was 10^9), the data type could not hold the sum. Since this was a problem in the original solution, I'm assuming (and this is a prerequisite for my question, sorry for missing that) that the numbers are too big to give any meaningful answers.
So, dividing by the total number of values directly is out. The original reason for why a normal SUM/COUNT solution was out was that SUM would overflow, but let's assume, for this question that SET-SET/SET-SIZE will underflow, or whatever.
The important part is that I cannot simply sum, I cannot simply divide by the number of total values. If I cannot do that, will my approach work, or not, and what can I do to fix it?
Let me outline the problem.
Let's assume you're going to calculate the average of the numbers 1 through 6, but you cannot (for whatever reason) do so by summing the numbers, counting the numbers, and then dividing the sum by the count. In other words, you cannot simply do (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6.
In other words, SUM(1..6)/COUNT(1..6) is out. We're not considering NULL's (as in database NULL's) here.
Several of the answers to that question alluded to being able to split the numbers being averaged into sets, say 3 or 50 or 1000 numbers, then calculating some number for that, and then finally combining those values to get the final average.
My position is that this is not possible in the general case, since this will make some numbers, the ones appearing in the final set, more or less valuable than all the ones in the previous sets, unless you can split all the numbers into equally sized sets.
For instance, to calculate the average of 1-6, you can split it up into sets of 3 numbers like this:
/ 1 2 3 \ / 4 5 6 \
| - + - + - | + | - + - + - |
\ 3 3 3 / \ 3 3 3 / <-- 3 because 3 numbers in the set
---------- -----------
2 2 <-- 2 because 2 equally sized groups
Which gives you this:
2 5
- + - = 3.5
2 2
(note: (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 3.5, so this is correct here)
However, my point is that once the number of values cannot be split into a number of equally sized sets, this method falls apart. For instance, what about the sequence 1-7, which contains a prime number of values.
Can a similar approach, that won't sum all the values, and count all the values, in one go, work?
So, is there such an approach? How do I calculate the average of an arbitrary number of values in which the following holds true:
I cannot do a normal sum/count approach, for whatever reason
I know the number of values beforehand (what if I don't, will that change the answer?)
Well, suppose you added three numbers and divided by three, and then added two numbers and divided by two. Can you get the average from these?
x = (a + b + c) / 3
y = (d + e) / 2
z = (f + g) / 2
And you want
r = (a + b + c + d + e + f + g) / 7
That is equal to
r = (3 * (a + b + c) / 3 + 2 * (d + e) / 2 + 2 * (f + g) / 2) / 7
r = (3 * x + 2 * y + 2 * z) / 7
Both lines above overflow, of course, but since division is distributive, we do
r = (3.0 / 7.0) * x + (2.0 / 7.0) * y + (2.0 / 7.0) * z
Which guarantees that you won't overflow, as I'm multiplying x, y and z by fractions less than one.
This is the fundamental point here. Neither I'm dividing all numbers beforehand by the total count, nor am I ever exceeding the overflow.
So... if you you keep adding to an accumulator, keep track of how many numbers you have added, and always test if the next number will cause an overflow, you can then get partial averages, and compute the final average.
And no, if you don't know the values beforehand, it doesn't change anything (provided that you can count them as you sum them).
Here is a Scala function that does it. It's not idiomatic Scala, so that it can be more easily understood:
def avg(input: List[Double]): Double = {
var partialAverages: List[(Double, Int)] = Nil
var inputLength = 0
var currentSum = 0.0
var currentCount = 0
var numbers = input
while (numbers.nonEmpty) {
val number = numbers.head
val rest = numbers.tail
if (number > 0 && currentSum > 0 && Double.MaxValue - currentSum < number) {
partialAverages = (currentSum / currentCount, currentCount) :: partialAverages
currentSum = 0
currentCount = 0
} else if (number < 0 && currentSum < 0 && Double.MinValue - currentSum > number) {
partialAverages = (currentSum / currentCount, currentCount) :: partialAverages
currentSum = 0
currentCount = 0
}
currentSum += number
currentCount += 1
inputLength += 1
numbers = rest
}
partialAverages = (currentSum / currentCount, currentCount) :: partialAverages
var result = 0.0
while (partialAverages.nonEmpty) {
val ((partialSum, partialCount) :: rest) = partialAverages
result += partialSum * (partialCount.toDouble / inputLength)
partialAverages = rest
}
result
}
EDIT:
Won't multiplying with 2, and 3, get me back into the range of "not supporter by the data type?"
No. If you were diving by 7 at the end, absolutely. But here you are dividing at each step of the sum. Even in your real case the weights (2/7 and 3/7) would be in the range of manageble numbers (e.g. 1/10 ~ 1/10000) which wouldn't make a big difference compared to your weight (i.e. 1).
PS: I wonder why I'm working on this answer instead of writing mine where I can earn my rep :-)
If you know the number of values beforehand (say it's N), you just add 1/N + 2/N + 3/N etc, supposing that you had values 1, 2, 3. You can split this into as many calculations as you like, and just add up your results. It may lead to a slight loss of precision, but this shouldn't be an issue unless you also need a super-accurate result.
If you don't know the number of items ahead of time, you might have to be more creative. But you can, again, do it progressively. Say the list is 1, 2, 3, 4. Start with mean = 1. Then mean = mean*(1/2) + 2*(1/2). Then mean = mean*(2/3) + 3*(1/3). Then mean = mean*(3/4) + 4*(1/4) etc. It's easy to generalize, and you just have to make sure the bracketed quantities are calculated in advance, to prevent overflow.
Of course, if you want extreme accuracy (say, more than 0.001% accuracy), you may need to be a bit more careful than this, but otherwise you should be fine.
Let X be your sample set. Partition it into two sets A and B in any way that you like. Define delta = m_B - m_A where m_S denotes the mean of a set S. Then
m_X = m_A + delta * |B| / |X|
where |S| denotes the cardinality of a set S. Now you can repeatedly apply this to partition and calculate the mean.
Why is this true? Let s = 1 / |A| and t = 1 / |B| and u = 1 / |X| (for convenience of notation) and let aSigma and bSigma denote the sum of the elements in A and B respectively so that:
m_A + delta * |B| / |X|
= s * aSigma + u * |B| * (t * bSigma - s * aSigma)
= s * aSigma + u * (bSigma - |B| * s * aSigma)
= s * aSigma + u * bSigma - u * |B| * s * aSigma
= s * aSigma * (1 - u * |B|) + u * bSigma
= s * aSigma * (u * |X| - u * |B|) + u * bSigma
= s * u * aSigma * (|X| - |B|) + u * bSigma
= s * u * aSigma * |A| + u * bSigma
= u * aSigma + u * bSigma
= u * (aSigma + bSigma)
= u * (xSigma)
= xSigma / |X|
= m_X
The proof is complete.
From here it is obvious how to use this to either recursively compute a mean (say by repeatedly splitting a set in half) or how to use this to parallelize the computation of the mean of a set.
The well-known on-line algorithm for calculating the mean is just a special case of this. This is the algorithm that if m is the mean of {x_1, x_2, ... , x_n} then the mean of {x_1, x_2, ..., x_n, x_(n+1)} is m + ((x_(n+1) - m)) / (n + 1). So with X = {x_1, x_2, ..., x_(n+1)}, A = {x_(n+1)}, and B = {x_1, x_2, ..., x_n} we recover the on-line algorithm.
Thinking outside the box: Use the median instead. It's much easier to calculate - there are tons of algorithms out there (e.g. using queues), you can often construct good arguments as to why it's more meaningful for data sets (less swayed by extreme values; etc) and you will have zero problems with numerical accuracy. It will be fast and efficient. Plus, for large data sets (which it sounds like you have), unless the distributions are truly weird, the values for the mean and median will be similar.
When you split the numbers into sets you're just dividing by the total number or am I missing something?
You have written it as
/ 1 2 3 \ / 4 5 6 \
| - + - + - | + | - + - + - |
\ 3 3 3 / \ 3 3 3 /
---------- -----------
2 2
but that's just
/ 1 2 3 \ / 4 5 6 \
| - + - + - | + | - + - + - |
\ 6 6 6 / \ 6 6 6 /
so for the numbers from 1 to 7 one possible grouping is just
/ 1 2 3 \ / 4 5 6 \ / 7 \
| - + - + - | + | - + - + - | + | - |
\ 7 7 7 / \ 7 7 7 / \ 7 /
Average of x_1 .. x_N
= (Sum(i=1,N,x_i)) / N
= (Sum(i=1,M,x_i) + Sum(i=M+1,N,x_i)) / N
= (Sum(i=1,M,x_i)) / N + (Sum(i=M+1,N,x_i)) / N
This can be repeatedly applied, and is true regardless of whether the summations are of equal size. So:
Keep adding terms until both:
adding another one will overflow (or otherwise lose precision)
dividing by N will not underflow
Divide the sum by N
Add the result to the average-so-far
There's one obvious awkward case, which is that there are some very small terms at the end of the sequence, such that you run out of values before you satisfy the condition "dividing by N will not underflow". In which case just discard those values - if their contribution to the average cannot be represented in your floating type, then it is in particular smaller than the precision of your average. So it doesn't make any difference to the result whether you include those terms or not.
There are also some less obvious awkward cases to do with loss of precision on individual summations. For example, what's the average of the values:
10^100, 1, -10^100
Mathematics says it's 1, but floating-point arithmetic says it depends what order you add up the terms, and in 4 of the 6 possibilities it's 0, because (10^100) + 1 = 10^100. But I think that the non-commutativity of floating-point arithmetic is a different and more general problem than this question. If sorting the input is out of the question, I think there are things you can do where you maintain lots of accumulators of different magnitudes, and add each new value to whichever one of them will give best precision. But I don't really know.
Here's another approach. You're 'receiving' numbers one-by-one from some source, but you can keep track of the mean at each step.
First, I will write out the formula for mean at step n+1:
mean[n+1] = mean[n] - (mean[n] - x[n+1]) / (n+1)
with the initial condition:
mean[0] = x[0]
(the index starts at zero).
The first equation can be simplified to:
mean[n+1] = n * mean[n] / (n+1) + x[n+1]/(n+1)
The idea is that you keep track of the mean, and when you 'receive' the next value in your sequence, you figure out its offset from the current mean, and divide it equally between the n+1 samples seen so far, and adjust your mean accordingly. If your numbers don't have a lot of variance, your running mean will need to be adjusted very slightly with the new numbers as n becomes large.
Obviously, this method works even if you don't know the total number of values when you start. It has an additional advantage that you know the value of the current mean at all times. One disadvantage that I can think of is the it probably gives more 'weight' to the numbers seen in the beginning (not in a strict mathematical sense, but because of floating point representations).
Finally, all such calculations are bound to run into floating-point 'errors' if one is not careful enough. See my answer to another question for some of the problems with floating point calculations and how to test for potential problems.
As a test, I generated N=100000 normally distributed random numbers with mean zero and variance 1. Then I calculated their mean by three methods.
sum(numbers) / N, call it m1,
my method above, call it m2,
sort the numbers, and then use my method above, call it m3.
Here's what I found: m1 − m2 ∼ −4.6×10−17, m1 − m3 ∼ −3×10−15, m2 − m3 ∼ −3×10−15. So, if your numbers are sorted, the error might not be small enough for you. (Note however that even the worst error is 10−15 parts in 1 for 100000 numbers, so it might be good enough anyway.)
Some of the mathematical solutions here are very good. Here's a simple technical solution.
Use a larger data type. This breaks down into two possibilities:
Use a high-precision floating point library. One who encounters a need to average a billion numbers probably has the resources to purchase, or the brain power to write, a 128-bit (or longer) floating point library.
I understand the drawbacks here. It would certainly be slower than using intrinsic types. You still might over/underflow if the number of values grows too high. Yada yada.
If your values are integers or can be easily scaled to integers, keep your sum in a list of integers. When you overflow, simply add another integer. This is essentially a simplified implementation of the first option. A simple (untested) example in C# follows
class BigMeanSet{
List<uint> list = new List<uint>();
public double GetAverage(IEnumerable<uint> values){
list.Clear();
list.Add(0);
uint count = 0;
foreach(uint value in values){
Add(0, value);
count++;
}
return DivideBy(count);
}
void Add(int listIndex, uint value){
if((list[listIndex] += value) < value){ // then overflow has ocurred
if(list.Count == listIndex + 1)
list.Add(0);
Add(listIndex + 1, 1);
}
}
double DivideBy(uint count){
const double shift = 4.0 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024;
double rtn = 0;
long remainder = 0;
for(int i = list.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--){
rtn *= shift;
remainder <<= 32;
rtn += Math.DivRem(remainder + list[i], count, out remainder);
}
rtn += remainder / (double)count;
return rtn;
}
}
Like I said, this is untested—I don't have a billion values I really want to average—so I've probably made a mistake or two, especially in the DivideBy function, but it should demonstrate the general idea.
This should provide as much accuracy as a double can represent and should work for any number of 32-bit elements, up to 232 - 1. If more elements are needed, then the count variable will need be expanded and the DivideBy function will increase in complexity, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
In terms of efficiency, it should be as fast or faster than any other technique here, as it only requires iterating through the list once, only performs one division operation (well, one set of them), and does most of its work with integers. I didn't optimize it, though, and I'm pretty certain it could be made slightly faster still if necessary. Ditching the recursive function call and list indexing would be a good start. Again, an exercise for the reader. The code is intended to be easy to understand.
If anybody more motivated than I am at the moment feels like verifying the correctness of the code, and fixing whatever problems there might be, please be my guest.
I've now tested this code, and made a couple of small corrections (a missing pair of parentheses in the List<uint> constructor call, and an incorrect divisor in the final division of the DivideBy function).
I tested it by first running it through 1000 sets of random length (ranging between 1 and 1000) filled with random integers (ranging between 0 and 232 - 1). These were sets for which I could easily and quickly verify accuracy by also running a canonical mean on them.
I then tested with 100* large series, with random length between 105 and 109. The lower and upper bounds of these series were also chosen at random, constrained so that the series would fit within the range of a 32-bit integer. For any series, the results are easily verifiable as (lowerbound + upperbound) / 2.
*Okay, that's a little white lie. I aborted the large-series test after about 20 or 30 successful runs. A series of length 109 takes just under a minute and a half to run on my machine, so half an hour or so of testing this routine was enough for my tastes.
For those interested, my test code is below:
static IEnumerable<uint> GetSeries(uint lowerbound, uint upperbound){
for(uint i = lowerbound; i <= upperbound; i++)
yield return i;
}
static void Test(){
Console.BufferHeight = 1200;
Random rnd = new Random();
for(int i = 0; i < 1000; i++){
uint[] numbers = new uint[rnd.Next(1, 1000)];
for(int j = 0; j < numbers.Length; j++)
numbers[j] = (uint)rnd.Next();
double sum = 0;
foreach(uint n in numbers)
sum += n;
double avg = sum / numbers.Length;
double ans = new BigMeanSet().GetAverage(numbers);
Console.WriteLine("{0}: {1} - {2} = {3}", numbers.Length, avg, ans, avg - ans);
if(avg != ans)
Debugger.Break();
}
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++){
uint length = (uint)rnd.Next(100000, 1000000001);
uint lowerbound = (uint)rnd.Next(int.MaxValue - (int)length);
uint upperbound = lowerbound + length;
double avg = ((double)lowerbound + upperbound) / 2;
double ans = new BigMeanSet().GetAverage(GetSeries(lowerbound, upperbound));
Console.WriteLine("{0}: {1} - {2} = {3}", length, avg, ans, avg - ans);
if(avg != ans)
Debugger.Break();
}
}
I have a question i know a line i just know its slope(m) and a point on it A(x,y) How can i calculate the points(actually two of them) on this line with a distance(d) from point A ???
I m asking this for finding intensity of pixels on a line that pass through A(x,y) with a distance .Distance in this case will be number of pixels.
I would suggest converting the line to a parametric format instead of point-slope. That is, a parametric function for the line returns points along that line for the value of some parameter t. You can represent the line as a reference point, and a vector representing the direction of the line going through that point. That way, you just travel d units forward and backward from point A to get your other points.
Since your line has slope m, its direction vector is <1, m>. Since it moves m pixels in y for every 1 pixel in x. You want to normalize that direction vector to be unit length so you divide by the magnitude of the vector.
magnitude = (1^2 + m^2)^(1/2)
N = <1, m> / magnitude = <1 / magnitude, m / magnitude>
The normalized direction vector is N. Now you are almost done. You just need to write the equation for your line in parameterized format:
f(t) = A + t*N
This uses vector math. Specifically, scalar vector multiplication (of your parameter t and the vector N) and vector addition (of A and t*N). The result of the function f is a point along the line. The 2 points you are looking for are f(d) and f(-d). Implement that in the language of your choosing.
The advantage to using this method, as opposed to all the other answers so far, is that you can easily extend this method to support a line with "infinite" slope. That is, a vertical line like x = 3. You don't really need the slope, all you need is the normalized direction vector. For a vertical line, it is <0, 1>. This is why graphics operations often use vector math, because the calculations are more straight-forward and less prone to singularities.
It may seem a little complicated at first, but once you get the hang of vector operations, a lot of computer graphics tasks get a lot easier.
Let me explain the answer in a simple way.
Start point - (x0, y0)
End point - (x1, y1)
We need to find a point (xt, yt) at a distance dt from start point towards end point.
The distance between Start and End point is given by d = sqrt((x1 - x0)^2 + (y1 - y0)^2)
Let the ratio of distances, t = dt / d
Then the point (xt, yt) = (((1 - t) * x0 + t * x1), ((1 - t) * y0 + t * y1))
When 0 < t < 1, the point is on the line.
When t < 0, the point is outside the line near to (x0, y0).
When t > 1, the point is outside the line near to (x1, y1).
Here's a Python implementation to find a point on a line segment at a given distance from the initial point:
import numpy as np
def get_point_on_vector(initial_pt, terminal_pt, distance):
v = np.array(initial_pt, dtype=float)
u = np.array(terminal_pt, dtype=float)
n = v - u
n /= np.linalg.norm(n, 2)
point = v - distance * n
return tuple(point)
Based on the excellent answer from #Theophile here on math stackexchange.
Let's call the point you are trying to find P, with coordinates px, py, and your starting point A's coordinates ax and ay. Slope m is just the ratio of the change in Y over the change in X, so if your point P is distance s from A, then its coordinates are px = ax + s, and py = ay + m * s. Now using Pythagoras, the distance d from A to P will be d = sqrt(s * s + (m * s) * (m * s)). To make P be a specific D units away from A, find s as s = D/sqrt(1 + m * m).
I thought this was an awesome and easy to understand solution:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?s=f04d131386fbd83b7b5df27f8da84fa1&p=2822353&postcount=4