3 ms·
If you rewrite this method in terms of determinants, then it also has the bonus of generalizing correctly to arbitrarily many dimensions! And it also gives you
by giornogiovanna 8y ago
If you rewrite this method in terms of determinants, then it also has the bonus of generalizing correctly to arbitrarily many dimensions! And it also gives you a nice picture - imagine adding and subtracting simplices with one point at the origin (triangles in 2D, tetrahedra in 3D).
- sleavey 8y agoCame here to ask about 3D. Weird that the article doesn't mention the 3D or n-dimensional case.
- phkahler 8y agoHere is my answer to 3D from a long long time ago. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1838401/general-formula-to-calculate-polyhedron-volume/1849746?noredirect=1#comment93093356_1849746 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1838401/general-formula-... Another interesting thing about the metrix in that answer. If you invert it, the rows become the coefficients for the plane equations of the faces. You also don't need to fully invert it - IIRC the adjoint is sufficient.
- theoh 8y agoSee Tom Duff's solution here: http://iq0.com/notes/normal.html http://iq0.com/notes/normal.html