Geometric Probabilities: Random Quadrilaterals?
Let R = const > 0 and x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄, y₁, y₂, y₃, y₄ are 8 independent uniformly distributed in [0, R] random variables. Let us consider the quadrilateral with vertexes
P₁(x₁, y₁), P₂(x₂, y₂), P₃(x₃, y₃) and P₄(x₄, y₄) /following in that order, not the convex envelope of these 4 points!/. What are the probabilities P₁P₂P₃P₄ to be:
- convex;
- concave;
- self-crossed;
/of course the probability of degenerated quadrilateral with at least 3 collinear vertexes is 0/
See the picture:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/3040735869_ccd5ca3dbc_o.gif
What is the behavior of the above probabilities when R → ∞?
Manjyomesando1, are You sure that if there are already 3 points in the plane in what of the 7 regions to be the fourth, so that the quadrilateral to be convex, concave, or self-crossed, is the same question? And why to consider the 6 infinite regions when R → ∞ equiareal on average - Your results need that assumption, right?
I have a reason to think P(self-crossed) is underestimated.
Yes, JB, I also think this problem is difficult and I can not solve it. All I have for the time being is a simulation using my computer's random generator - it generates 8 pseudo random numbers from 0 to min(Screen_Width, Screen_Height), then computes (using determinants):
A₄ = Oriented_Area(P₁P₂P₃);
A₁ = Oriented_Area(P₂P₃P₄);
A₂ = Oriented_Area(P₃P₄P₁);
A₃ = Oriented_Area(P₄P₁P₂);
The quadrilateral's type is determined according the signs of A₁, A₂, A₃ and A₄ (equal signs - convex, 3:1 - concave, 2:2 - self-crossed), then it is output on screen. Running the simulation many times I got frequencies, very near to Yours, so I'm waiting what results You'll get after eventual revision of Your program!
Looking from this viewpoint (signs of the oriented areas, corresponding to the CW/CCW direction we go around the perimeter of a triangle), purely intuitive seems all the signs to be same to be least probable, the signs to split evenly most probable. That is very convincingly confirmed by JB's simulations.
The rigorous proof may be difficult and since the time for answering is about to expire, I kindly ask everybody, who has or will have more on the subject, to email me.