COMPUTER VISION, GRAPHICS, AND IMAGE PROCESSING 24, 131-159 (1983)

Circumscribing a Convex Polygon by a Polygon

of Fewer Sides with Minimal Area Addition
Dov DORI AND MOSHE BEN-BASSAT*
Faculty of Management
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
Received December 11,198l; revised June 21,1982

An approach and an algorithm are introduced for circumscribing a given n-sided convex
polygon P,, by an m-sided polygon P,,,, (m < n), so that the added area is minimal. This
algorithm constitutes one building block in an algorithm for efficient nesting of arbitrary
geometric shapes in a given rectangular board. Flame cutting of steel sheets and laser cutting of
textiles are two industrial situations where this problem is of great importance. The approach
follows a top-down stepwise refinement and reduction of the original problem into simpler
subproblems, the solutions of all of which permit the solution of the original problem. It is first
shown that the optimal circumscription of P, by P, may be obtained by (n - m) iterative
single side reductions. The solution of the single side reduction problem is then characterized,
and an algorithm which is based on the triangle rotating side problem is proposed. This last
problem is concerned with passing the third side of a triangle through a given point that lies
within the area bounded by the two other given sides so that the triangle area is minimized. On
the way to proving the optimahty of the algorithms for the original problem and its
subproblems, new concepts and theorems are introduced. The algorithm was tested on a very
large number of polygons with varying numbers of sides and shapes, which were circumscribed
by hexagons. The average efficiency-defined as the ratio of the area of P, to that of Pm--was
96%. As n increases, efficiency reduces and approaches asymptotically the maximum achievable
efficiency for circumscribing a circle (“infinite” sided polygon) by a regular hexagon: 90.69%.
With n = 50 the average efficiency was 91.8%.

1. INTRODUCTION

In its classical form, the “cutting stock problem” is concerned with cutting a
rectangular board or roll of material into smaller rectangular pieces of given
different sizes so that the waste is minimized [l-3]. The problem has been presented
with various versions and limitations, such as restricting the cut to be of a
“guillotine” type [4,8] or tilting the rectangles relative to the board from which they
are cut [5]. None of the models, however, deals with shapes which are more complex
than rectangles, thereby severely restricting applicability. Flame and plasma cutting
of steel sheets and laser cutting of textiles are two instances of industrial applications
where optimal cutting of irregular shapes from a given rectangular two-dimensional
board is of great importance. Figure 1 illustrates figures nested on a board for flame
cutting of steel sheets.
The overall problem of our research deals with minimum waste nesting of
arbitrary shapes on a rectangular two-dimensional board. Since every shape can be
approximated, to any desired degree of accuracy, by polygons with sufficiently large
numbers of sides [lo], we chose to start with optimal nesting of polygons.
Optimal nesting of polygons has been previously addressed in the context of
paving, that is, which kind of polygons can be fitted side by side so that a continuous
*Address correspondence to M. Ben-Bassat.
131
0734-189X/83 $3.00
Copyright Q 1983 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
132 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

FIG. 1. A sample of nested figures for flame cutting of steel sheets.

covering of the plane is achieved without any waste at all. Kershner [6] has shown
that no convex polygon with more than six sides can pave the plane. He has also
shown that there are exactly three types of hexagons and eight types of pentagons
which can pave the plane, and has characterized the features of each type. (The first
three types of pentagons are special cases of the first three types of paving hexagons,
respectively.) Thus, the approach we have adopted for the efficient nesting of convex
polygons is based on finding the paving hexagon which circumscribes the originaI
convex polygon with minimum area addition.
Since paving hexagons have special features, we first find the circumscribing
general hexagon whose area is minimal, and then convert it to a paving hexagon with
minimal area addition.
This paper introduces an approach and a O(n) algorithm for optimal circumscrip-
tion (minimal waste) of an n-sided convex polygon by an m-sided polygon, where
n > m 2 3. The algorithm constitutes a part of the solution for the efficient nesting
of congruent shapes in a given rectangle, which, in turn, is a key component in the
cutting stock problem for irregular shapes.
Related works’ on this subject include an O(n) algorithm by Klee [ll] for finding
the minimum area circumscribing (MAC) triangle (m = 3) of a convex polygon P,,.
Freeman and Shapira [12] propose an algorithm for optimal circumscription of an
n-sided convex polygon by a rectangle, i.e., m = 4. Their algorithm is 0(n2).
Toussaint [13] shows how to reduce this complexity to O(n).
Dobkin and Snyder [14] discuss problems concerned with efficient inscription and
circumscription of convex polygons. In their paper they propose an O(n) algorithm
for an inscription problem which is dual to our problem, i.e., given P,,, what is the
largest Pk, k < n, which may be embedded in P,? The correctness of this algorithm
is proved, however, only for k = 3. Dobkin and Snyder [14, p. 131 also suggest
modifications to the inscription algorithm to make it applicable to the problem of
circumscribing a given P, by a triangle of minimal area.

‘We are grateful to an monynous referee for drawing our attention to related works of which we were
unaware.
 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 133

2. CONVENTIONS FOR POLYGON NOTATION

The following notation, which is illustrated in Fig. 2(a), will be used:

Polygon An n-sided polygon is denoted by P,.
Vertices The vertices of a polygon are denoted by VI, V, , . . . , V,. The
numbers increase counterclockwise.
Sides The sides of a polygon are denoted by S,, S,, . . . , S,, where
$ is the line segment connecting vertices y. and v/ + r.
Angles The angles of a polygon are denoted by A,, A,, . . . ,A,
according to the numbers of the vertices.
Distance The distance between a point C and a straight line I is
denoted by D(C, I).
Point of intersection The point of intersection of two straight lines I, and I, is
denoted by C(I,, 12), provided that l, and I, do intersect.
Area of a polygon The area of a polygon P,, whose vertices are V,, V,, . . , , V, is
denoted by R( P,) or R(Vl, V,, . . . , V,).

3. BASIC ORDER OF A CONVEX POLYGON

DEFINITION 1. A convex polygon is of basic order k if it has exactly k sides,

q,, s,,, * * -, si, for each of which

Aj, + Aj,+l < IT ji = 1,2 ,..., k.

A side 3 for which the above expression holds will be referred to as a “basic side,”
since intuitively it may serve as a stable basis on which the polygon can “stand”
firm. Geometrically, if we extend the two sides adjacent to a basic side, they will
form, together with the basic side, a triangle, which fully contains the original
polygon (see Figs. 2(b) and (c)).

(a) @I (cl

FIG. 2. The three kinds of convex polygons with more than three sides, classified by their basic order:
(a) circular polygon; (b) basic polygon of basic order 1: dA, + dA, i 27r; and (c) basic polygon of basic
order 2: dA, + LA, -C 277 and LA, + dA, < 2~.
134 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

The basic order of a convex polygon P,, will be denoted by BO( P,,); thus,

BO( P, ) f number of basic sides of P,,.

THEOREM 1. Any two basic sides of a convex polygon P,, are adjacent.

Proof: See Appendix A.

THEOREM 2. BO( P,,) 5 3 for any convex polygon P,,
Proof. See Appendix B.
THEOREM 3. BO( P,,) = 3 if and on& ij n = 3.

Proof. See Appendix C.

The following conclusions may be drawn from Theorems 1, 2, and 3:
(1) A triangle is the only convex polygon which has three basic sides;
(2) for n > 3, the number of basic sides is two at the most, and in that case,
these two sides are adjacent.
Using the concept of basic order, two distinct groups of convex polygons with
more than three sides may be distinguished, circular, and basic.
DEFINITION 2. A convex polygon is circular if and only if BO( P,,) = 0.
DEFINITION 3. A convex polygon is basic if and only if BO( P,) > 0.

According to Theorem 2 there are exactly three kinds of convex polygons with
more than three sides; one is circular and the other two are basic polygons; one is of
basic order 1, and the other is of basic order 2. The three kinds are illustrated in
Fig. 2.
4. PROBLEM REDUCTION

As stated above, our original problem is

Problem 0: Circumscribe a given n-sided convex polygon P,, by an m-sided
polygon P, with minimal area addition.
To find a solution to this problem, we introduce the single side reduction problem.
Problem 1: Solve Problem 0 for m = n - 1.
Denote by Cir( P,) the operation of circumscribing P,, by P,,_ 1 with minimal area
addition; then P,,- t = Cir( P,,) is a solution of the single side reduction problem
stated as Problem 1.
More generally, we shall denote by Cir”-” (P,,) the iterative circumscription of P,,
by P,, where each iteration is a single side reduction of the polygon obtained in the
previous iteration: P, is circumscribed by P,,_ r, P,,_ r by P,,_ z, and so on until P,,, is
achieved. Thus, Cir”-“( P,) E P,.
Theorem 4, which follows, states the sufficient conditions which Cir”-“( P,) must
satisfy in order to be an optimal solution for Problem 0.
THEOREM 4. P, = Cirn-“‘(Pn), wh ere 3 5 m < n, is an optimal m-sided polvgon
circumscribing P,, if
BO( P,) = BO( P,).
 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 135

Proof: See Appendix D. (The proof in Appendix D refers to the concepts of

internal and external side reductions which are introduced in Section 6.)
Since P, _ r has one side and one vertex less than P,,, a solution to Problem 1 is
characterized by the following theorem whose proof is straightforward.

THEOREM 5. Single side reduction must be obtained by eliminating a specific vertex

5 of P,, and constructing Pnel as follows (see Figs. 4 and 5):

(1) Sj _ 1 and Sj are replaced by another side, Sj’, which passes through 5.;
(2) Sj-2 and $+I are extended until they meet Sj’;
(3) the remaining sides of P,-l coincide with those of P,,.

For a given J$, finding the new side s/‘, which yields minimum area addition, is a
constrained single side reduction problem which is formulated as follows (see Fig. 4).
Problem 2: For a given q of P,, find a side ?$’ passing through 5 such that

(1) yt, = c<s;, sjil)z;

(2) 5’ = C(SI, Sjp2);
(3) R, = R(Vj, qtl, q:,) + R(c, y-I, L$!.,) is minimal.

R, denotes the area added to P, when y is eliminated to form P,,-l.

The solution of Problem 1 now reduces to
(i) solve Problem 2 for each vertex 5, and find the corresponding added area Rj;
(ii) circumscribe P,, by Pnel by eliminating that vertex 5 for which Rj is minimal.

5. THE TRIANGLE ROTATING SIDE PROBLEM

Solving Problem 2 requires the introduction of the “ triangle rotating side problem,”
which is stated as follows (see Fig. 3).
Problem 3: Given two fixed sides of a triangle and a point lying within the area
bounded by them, pass the third side through the given point so that the triangle
area is minimized.

THEOREM 6. The area of a triangle of which two sides, AB and AC are given, and
whose third side BC must pass through a given point P that lies within the area bounded
by AB and AC, is given by

sinx
sin(s;;x)u2 + 2uv +
sin(a+x)v2 (1)
where a is the angle between AB and AC,
x is the angle between AC and BC,
v is the distance from P to AB, and
u is the distance from P to AC (see Fig. 3).

*To simplify the notation, S,,, and Sje2 are also used to denote their extensions in any direction.
136 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

FIG. 3. The triangle rotating side problem.

FIG. 4. External side reduction.

Proof. See Appendix E.

Taking the derivative of expression (1) with respect to x we get

dR 1 u2 u2
dx=--- 2 sin2x sin2(a + LX) ’
(2)
Equating dR/dx to zero we get

sin(x -t u) = Esin x (3)

 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 137

FIG. 5. Internal side reduction.

or
usina
X& = arctan
u - ucosa’
Since dR/dx changes its value from negative to positive as it passes through the
zero point, x is the point where R(x) attains its minimum. This minimal value is
determined by substituting (4) in (1):
R,,=+ (5)
sina
Additionally, from Pq. (3) we derive
V u
sin( x + a) = -sin x (6)

which implies PB = PC by their definition.

This equality constitutes the solution for the triangle rotating side problem
(Problem 3), which is stated by the following theorem.
THEOREM 7. Given two sides of a triangle and a point within the area bounded by
them, through which the third side must pass, the triangle whose area is minimal is
formed when the given point lies in the middle of the third side.
The area function, given by expression (l), is defined for 0 < x < 277 - a. At the
extreme points, where x = 0 or x = 29r - a the third side is parallel to either one of
the two given sides, thus forming in both cases a triangle whose area is in&rite.

6. SOLUTION OF THE CONSTRAINED SINGLE-SIDE REDUCMON PROBLEM

Problem 2 can be rephrased
polygon P,, is to be eliminated
side Sj’ of the circumscribing
area Rj added to P,,?
Let 2, = AjpI + Aj + Aj+l,
as follows: given that some vertex 5 of the original
following operation Cir( P,), how should the replacing
polygon Pndl be passed through I$ to minimize the
and W = C(%+l, 3-Z) (see Figs. 4 and 5).
138 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

By considering the position of the original polygon relative to the quadrilateral

whose vertices are y-l, I$, q+ i, and IV, two different cases arise:
Case 1: The original polygon is fully contained in the convex quadrilateral.
which is equivalent to Z, < 2n (Fig. 4). A solution of Problem 2 involving this case
will be termed “external side reduction .”
Case 2: The original polygon is fully excluded from the (nonconvex) quadri-
lateral, which is equivalent to Z, 2 217 (Fig. 5). A solution of Problem 2 involving
this case will be termed “internal side reduction.”
Case I: External Side Reduction (Fig. 4)
In this case, minimizing the area of P,,- 1 is equivalent to minimizing the area of
the triangle whose vertices are 5’ i, V,; 1, and IV, because the area added to P, is
exactly the same area which is added to the quadrilateral (IV, q.-r, 5, q+ i) when
turning it to the triangle (IV, y.L i, I$: i).
Considering the triangle rotating side problem, in which the continuations of S, + 1
and S,-, are the fixed sides, 5 is the point within them and Sj’ is the third side to be
added, let us denote
u = q 5, s-+1),

z, = 2lr - z,,
Z, = Aj + A,+1 - ?r,
and x as the angle between Sj’ and the continuation of Sj+ I (see Fig. 4). Using (4) we
can write
usin z,
xmin = arctan u - ucosz,
i 1
as the value of the angle x which ninimim the area of the triangle discussed above.
In our case, however, there is an additional constraint on x: ?$’ must lie completely
outside the area of the original polygon P,,, because otherwise P,- 1 will not
circumscribe P,. The range of existence of the area function R(x) (1) is therefore
reduced to
Z, < x I Aj+l. (7)
If xti is within these limits, then the constraint imposed by (7) is not effective. If, on
the other hand, xmin < ZX or xti > A,+l, then the optimal solution is constrained
to be xOrt = Z, or xopt = Aj+i respectively, so that 3’ will coincide with either S,-l
or Sj rather than cross the area of P,,. The optimal solution must be on these
boundary points since R(x) is monotonically decreasing up to xmin and monotoni-
cally increasing beyond it. Sj- i and Sj will be termed the “limiting sides.” The three
possible cases are demonstrated in Fig. 6.
The following theorem states the solution for external side reduction.
THEOREM 8. If Z, < 2m, then the optimal solution for the angle x is

z3 if xmin < Z,
xmin if Z, x xmin < A,,,
xopt =
Aj+l if xmin 2 Aj+i.
 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 139

1 I
I
I
0
z3 *min A'J+l 22

:ase 1: 23 GYmin <A. 1+1’ No constraint: x

opt = ‘min

R
J
I
I
,
I
0 2 A. LE.
‘min 3 ]+I

3ase 2: x.ml" iz3; xo,,t = 23

Case 3: xmin > Aj+l; x >A.

LPtJ+l

FIG. 6. Three possible cases of external side reduction.

If xopt= 2, theti l$’ a qpl, or equivalently, ,Y$’passes through 5 and I$ 1. (The

symbol “ = ” in this context stands for “coincides with.“) If xppt = xmin then q!
passes through F$only, and if xOPt= Ai+ 1 then 3’ = y+ 1, or equivalently, sj passes
through 5 and q+1.
Case 2: Internal Side Reduction (Fig. 5)
So far we have handled external side reduction, where 2, < 27r. In the second
case, where 2, L 2a, the original polygon lies completely outside the area of the
nonconvex quadrilateral whose vertices are W, QW1, 5, and q+l. Minimking the
area of the original polygon is equivalent to maximking the area of the triangle
140 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

(IV, ?I,, q;,), because the area of the original polygon P,, plus the area of the
nonconvex quadrilateral (W, q-i, I$ y.,,), which is adjacent to it, is constant.
Thus, any increase of the area of the triangle (W, 71 i, y;,) causes a parallel
decrease of the area of the resulting P,,_ i in which VJis eliminated.
Analyzing the area function, we find that the area of the triangle increases as the
side S,‘, which passes through I$, tends to be parallel to either S,-2 or Sj+ ,. In our
case, however, since Sj’ must not cross the area of the original polygon (otherwise we
will not have a circumscribing polygon), the range of existence of the area function is
restricted to Z, I x I Aj+t, as in Case 1. Since the area of the triangle increases as
x approaches the boundaries, the optimal solution under these constraints will be
either Z, or A,+i, as stated in the following theorem.

THEOREM 9. Zf Z, 2 2a, then an optimal solution for the angle x is given by

x opt = z3 ifR(V ,’ V,+1, v,51) 2 $5,

otherwise
T-;dpJ
Aj+l

where Cl1 = C(S,, S,-,) and V,;, = C(S,_,, S,,,) (see Fig. 5).
If Xopt = Z, then S; z Sj- i, or equivalently, S; passes through I$ and I$ i . If
X DPt= Aj+l then S; z Sj, or equivalently, 5” passes through I$ and V,,,.
Using Theorems 8 and 9, we can now solve the constrained single-side reduction
problem (Problem 2) for any given 7 to be eliminated. The algorithm proceeds by
first checking whether the original polygon is contained in the quadrilateral (Step 2).
If the answer is positive, we apply external side reduction (Theorem 8 in Steps 3 and
4), else we apply internal side reduction (Theorem 9 in Steps 5 and 6). In both cases
we compute and store the area Rj which is added to P, to yield Pnwl (Step 9).
Algorithm 2: Constrained Single Side Reduction for Vertex V, (CSSlX(j) (see Figs.
4, 5))
Step 1. Compute Z, = A, + Ajdl + A,+l.
step 2. If Z, r 2?~ go to Step 5, else continue.
Step 3. Compute Z,= 2?r - Z,,

usinz,
xti = arctan , and
i u - ucos z, I
Z3=A, + Aj+1 -2a.
Step 4. If xmin I Zs then xopt = Z,.
If Zs < xmin 5 A,,, then x,,r, = xmin.
If xmin > A,,, then xOrt = Aiil.
Go to Step 7.
Step 5. Find &=C(%., S,-,) and
~~,=c(sj-13 sj+,>3
 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 141

and compute R,=R(I$, I$.i, y.L,) and

R,=R(y, ?+I, %;,I.
Step 6. If R, < R, then x,,rt = Aj+l, else x,,rt = Z,.
Step 7. Pass q through 5 so that it will make an angle of xopt with sj+i.
Step 8. Find the two new vertices q:i and I$, formed by the intersection of
the new side 4.’ with T-z and s/+ i, respectively:

~‘l=C(s,,,+,), and

I$l=c(s;,~+J.

Step 9. Compute and store the added area I; associated with the elimination of
5 as follows:

r,=R(C;,~-~,~‘,)+R(V,,~+,,~;,).

Step 10. End.

7. SOLUTION OF THE SINGLE SIDE REDUCTION PROBLEM Cir(P,)

CSSR is performed on each one of the n vertices of P, to obtain the corresponding
n T,‘s. Eliminating the vertex V, for which T, is the smallest yields the optimal Pnpl.
Pn-l is used as an input for the next iteration. Note that in this case (as well as in
further iterations) the only q’s which change relative to the former iteration(s) are
those associated with the new vertex (or two adjacent vertices in case of an external
side reduction) and its two adjacent neighbors. Thus, n CSSR’s have to be performed
only in the first iteration (when i = l), while in the following iterations (i =
233,. . . ,n - m), the number of CSSR’s which has to be performed is usually 3, and
never exceeds 4. This is described in the following algorithm.
Algorithm 1: Single Side Reduction for Iteration i, i = 1,2,. . . n - m(Cir(P,- ;+i)).
Step 1. If i = 1 then perform constrained single side reduction (CSSR(j),
Algorithm 2) for each one of the vertices of P,, j = 1,2,. . . n, else,
if vi:)1 = vCivl
e- i ) (superscript i indicates the iteration number)
then perform CSSR for K?i, Kc’), V$i,
else if v(i) = y(i-1)
the; perfo;‘CSSR for VL!$, V>‘), and I$‘),
else perform CSSR for V>!jz, VL?i, V(‘), and I$:‘).
Step 2. Apply the eliminating criterion: the eliminated vertex V>‘) is the one for
which the added area T.(‘) is the smallest qJ’),j = 1,2,, . . ,n - i + 1.
Step 3. $$y;y$l w’) 0 he clockwise adjacent vertex to V,) by V’i!)i = Vd_,,and
I I and update the values of the corresponding new angles.
e+l,
Step 4. Decrease by 1 the indices of the vertices, angles, and sides of the new
circumscribing polygon P,-, from e + 2 to n - i consecutively.
Step 5. End.
Denoting by q the area which is added to the polygon P,, in the i th iteration of the
iterative circumscription, the following theorem holds.
142 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

THEOREM 10. q is a nondecreasing function of i.

Proof: See Appendix F.
The meaning of this theorem is that the areas added to the polygon in each
iteration increase as the number of sides of the polygon decreases. This theorem is
the key for the proof of the optimality of the circumscribing polygon Pm obtained by
the iterative circumscription Cir”-” (P,) under the condition BO( Pm) = BO( P,)
stated in Theorem 4. The following section deals with the case in which this
condition is not met.
8. COMPRESSION
If the condition BO(P,,,) = BO( P,,) is not met, then either

BO(P,n)
< BO(f-‘n) (8)

or

BO(P,) > BO(P,). (9)

The following two theorems imply that (8) is impossible and that (9) can occur if
and only if at least one of the single side reductions involved in the iterative
circumscription is external
~EORBM 11. Any basic side which exists in P,, is retained as part of a basic side of
PIn‘

Proof; See Appendix G.

~EORBM 12. A new basic side can be formed on& by an external side reduction.
ProojI See Appendix H.
Denote by b the number of external side reductions performed during the iterative
circumscription, then Theorems 11 and 12 imply

BO(P,) = BO(P,) + b. (10)

If the basic order of Pm = CirEpm( P,) is higher than that of P,,, it means that Pm
has b (b 5 3), basic sides, which did not exist in P,. Each such basic side is,
according to Theorem 12, a result of an external side reduction. External side
reduction may involve either the elongation of a side of P,, or the introduction of a
new side Sj’ which did not originally exist in P,,. If this new side passes through a
vertex which did not exist originally in P,, but was rather produced during the
iterative circumscription, then the new side is not tangent to P,. The resulting Pm in
this case is not optimal, because its area may be decreased by passing another side
parallel to S’ which is tangent to P,, (see Fig. 7).
To avoid a suboptimal result for Cir ’ - “( P,,), w h enever an external side reduction
is encountered during the iterative circumscription, the resulting new basic side must
be checked as to whether or not it passes through an original vertex of P,,. If the
answer is positive, then no improvement can be achieved, and the iterative cir-
cumscription may go on, else the basic side causes the elimination of a vertex which
 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 143

------ Outer contour after compression

FIG. 7. Compression.

was formed during one of the previous side reductions. In this case, the new basic
side must be moved until it is tangent to P,, such that the addition of area to P,, is
minimized. This process, which is described in the following algorithm, is termed
“COMPRESSION” and is optimal by construction.
Algorithm 3: Compression (see Fig. 7)

Step 1. Let V, denote the vertex which is eliminated by the new basic side sj’ and
letsi and sj+p denote the sides of P,, which intersect at V,.
Step 2. Set i = 0.
Step 3. Set i = i + 1.
Step 4. Perform external side reduction in which
(a) q+i is the fixed point,
(b) s/-l and %+,+i are the fixed sides,
(c) Sj+i-l and Sj+i are the limiting sides.
Step 5. Compute and store the area Ei added to the polygon by the addition of
the new side.
Step 6. If i = p continue, else go to 3.
Step 7. Find the minimal Ei and pass the new side through the corresponding
l$ +i. This side replaces 5’.
Step 8. End.

9. SOLUTION OF THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM

An optimal algorithm for circumscribing a given convex n-sided polygon by an

m-sided polygon with minimal area addition is based on iterative circumscription,
Cirnem(Pn), combined with compression, which is applied whenever it becomes
necessary.
144 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

Algorithm 0: Circumscribing a Convex n-Sided Polygon by an m-Sided Polygon with

Minimal Area Addition

Step 1. Set i = 0.
Step 2. Set i = i + 1.
Step 3. Find P,,_ i = Cir( P, _ i + i) by a single side reduction (Algorithm 1).
Step 4. If the single side reduction, performed in Step 3, caused an addition of a
new basic side, then continue, else go to Step 6.
Step 5. If the new basic side does not pass through any one of the original
vertices of P, then perform compression (Algorithm 3), else continue.
Step 6. If i = n - m end, else go to Step 2.
Step 7. End.

The optimahty of this fktl algorithm is based on Theorem 4, which states that
Cir”-“( P,,) is the optimal P,,, if no new basic side is introduced during the iterative
circumscription, and on the optimality of the compression algorithm. The compres-
sion is applied whenever it becomes necessary, which makes sure that at the end of
each one of the (n - m) steps of the process, the resulting circumscribing polygon
P,,_ I is optimal not only with respect to P, _ i + i, but also with respect to P,.
It should be noted that for m 2 4, compression wiII never be applied more than
(2 - BO(P,)) times during the process of iterative circumscription of P,,, because,
according to Theorems 2 and 3, any convex polygon with more than three sides
contains at most two basic sides, and because according to Theorem 11, no basic
side which existed in P,, can be eliminated. Moreover, if there is one basic side (either
original or not), we know by Theorem 1 that the second basic side must be adjacent
to it. These facts facilitate the computational effort.

10. TIME COMPLEXITY OF THE ALGORITHM

Figure 8 is a schematic representation of the structure of Algorithm 0. It includes

(n - m) applications of Algorithm 1, which is the single side reduction (SSR). In
each application i, i = 1,2,. . . , n - m, Algorithm 2, which is the constrained singk
side reduction, is performed three or four times, except for the first application,
where it is performed n times. Algorithm 3 (compression) is applied foIIowing some
applications of Algorithm 1, whenever it becomes necessary. As a function of n, the
time complexity of the algorithm is determined by the number of the constrained
single side reductions (CSSR) which is bounded by n + 4(n - m - l), i.e., C!(n)
(see Fig. 8).

11. NUMERICAL RESULTS

DEFINITION 4. The circumscription efficiency of P,, by P,, E(n, m),m < n, is

defined as

E(n,m>= R(P,)/R(P,). (11)

The e5ciency of circumscribing P, by P,,, was tested using extensive set of
randomly generated convex polygons. Devroye [15] proposes an aIgori&m for such a
randomization. We used the following less elegant algorithm.
 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 145

I I P
m+l
= Cir(Pm+2)
. I
SSR(n-m-l)
r---l
ip n-1
r 143 most_ 3 _CSP’~- _-__
-----~-- - - I- IL 1
I
SSR(i) I

FIG. 8. Schematic structure of algorithm 0.

Algorithm 4: Generating a Random Convex Polygon P,,

Step 1. Select n angles from a uniform distribution on the interval (0,2n] and
sort them in an ascending order.
Step 2. Select n radii from a uniform distribution on (0, 11.
Step 3. Define the n vertices using the n angles and n radii.
Step 4. Check each three consecutive vertices of the resulting polygon for
convexity, and correct the middle one, if necessary, by lengthening its
radius by a proper random amount.
Step 5. Repeat Step 4 until no corrections are made over a complete cycle.
Step 6. End.

The result of this algorithm is an n-sided convex polygon which is confined within
a unit circle. The polygon of Fig. 7 is an example for n = 13.
Using the above simulation procedure for generating convex polygons, we applied
Algorithm 0 with m = 6 and n varying from 7 to 50. To avoid misleading results we
also tested polygons which are confined within an ellipsoid. This was achieved by
multiplying the x coordinates of the vertices by a certain number, termed “ovality.”
This number expresses the ratio between the major and the minor axis of the
circumscribing ellipsoid. For each n, four groups with oval&y of 1, 3,9, and 27 were
run. Each such group included 40 different random convex polygons.
146 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

The results are presented in Table 1, where two lines contain the results for each n.
The first line summarizes the data for the 40 polygons with ovality 1 (i.e., contained
within the unit circle), while the second line summarizes the data for 120 polygons
with ovalities 3, 9, and 27. For example, for n = 10 the average circumscription
efficiency E(10,6) for ovality 1 is 98.71%, with standard deviation of 1.81% and
coefficient of variation (SD/E) 0.018. The average area of the polygons in this
group is 1.55, with standard deviation of 0.63 and coefficient of variation of 0.40.

TABLE 1
EWciency of Circumscribing n-Sided Polygons by Paver Hexagons

Average Average
Sample efficiency rhwn SD of
n size Ovality E(n,6) (73 PD[E(n,6)1 SD/E area area SD/area

7 40 1. 99.79 0.66 0.007 1.12 0.75 0.67

7 120 Average 99.78 0.75 0.008 12.96 11.43 0.82
8 40 1. 99.42 1.36 0.014 1.18 0.66 0.56
8 120 Average 99.46 1.36 0.014 14.11 10.12 0.65
9 40 1. 98.92 1.97 0.020 1.27 0.50 0.39
9 120 Average 98.97 1.98 0.020 16.60 8.27 0.47
10 40 1. 98.71 1.81 0.018 1.55 0.63 0.40
10 120 Average 98.79 1.73 0.017 18.28 8.51 0.45
11 40 1. 98.35 1.59 0.016 1.60 0.64 0.40
11 120 Average 98.34 1.64 0.017 20.74 6.64 0.36
12 40 1. 98.34 4.32 0.044 1.87 0.60 0.32
12 120 Average 97.98 2.86 0.029 22.33 6.99 0.32
13 40 1. 97.45 2.09 0.021 1.93 0.64 0.33
13 120 Average 97.45 2.37 0.024 23.89 6.50 0.30
14 40 1. 97.07 2.29 0.024 2.00 0.51 0.25
14 120 Average 97.15 2.34 0.024 25.10 5.39 0.24
15 40 1. 97.10 6.79 0.070 2.15 0.51 0.23
15 120 Average 96.94 3.92 0.040 26.65 5.19 0.21
16 40 1. 96.88 5.52 0.057 2.27 0.40 0.18
16 120 Average 96.64 3.35 0.035 27.55 4.98 0.19
17 40 1. 96.61 1.97 0.020 2.24 0.44 0.20
17 120 Average 96.40 2.10 0.022 27.85 4.84 0.17
18 40 1. 96.20 2.60 0.027 2.37 0.36 0.15
18 120 Average 96.15 2.23 0.023 29.37 3.95 0.15
19 40 1. 95.78 2.04 0.021 2.43 0.40 0.17
19 120 Average 95.63 2.03 0.021 30.32 3.60 0.13
20 40 1. 96.13 2.52 0.026 2.44 0.30 0.12
20 120 Average 96.13 4.66 0.048 30.48 3.04 0.11
25 40 1. 94.87 1.51 0.016 2.66 0.17 0.06
25 120 Average 94.66 2.28 0.024 32.99 2.10 0.06
30 40 1. 93.47 1.63 0.017 2.81 0.12 0.04
30 120 Average 93.66 1.57 0.017 34.35 1.60 0.04
35 40 1. 93.98 3.67 0.039 2.87 0.09 0.03
35 120 Average 93.29 2.05 0.022 35.72 0.74 0.03
40 40 1. 92.72 1.71 0.018 2.94 0.06 0.02
40 120 Average 92.49 1.32 0.014 36.22 0.68 0.02
45 40 1. 91.60 0.94 0.010 2.99 0.04 0.01
45 120 Average 92.00 1.18 0.013 36.73 0.53 0.01
50 40 1. 92.01 1.10 0.012 2.99 0.04 0.01
50 120 Average 91.80 2.10 0.023 37.09 0.45 0.01
 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 147

For the 120 ten-sided polygons with ovalities 3, 9, and 27, the corresponding
numbers are 98.79%, 1.73%, 0.017, 18.28, 8.51, and 0.45.
Figure 9 demonstrates the circumscription efficiency E(n, 6) as a function of n.
The following conclusions may be drawn from the results presented in Table 1:
(1) It appears that the algorithm is not sensitive to variations in ovality.
(2) For the cases with ovality 1, as n increases, the circumscription efficiency
decreases monotonically from 99.8% for II = 7, to 91.8% for n = 50. This is very
close to the maximum achievable efficiency of 90.69% for a very large n as explained
below. Similar results hold for the cases with ovality greater than 1.
As n tends to infinity, the random convex polygon generated by our method
(Algorithm 4) tends to assume the shape of the circumscribing circle. Thus

lim R(P,)
n--too
= &. (12)

Optimal circumscription of a circle by a polygon is attained when the polygon is

regular, i.e., equal sided.
The area of a regular n-sided polygon circumscribing a circle of radius r is [7]

R(P,) = mr2tan(7r/m). 03)

From (ll), (12), and (13) we get that the circumscription efficiency of an “in&rite”

0’
5
‘0
E
al
t
2 96 -
5
i
E
a 95-
.$
%
s 94-

93 -

92 -

91
7 10 20 30 40 50

number of sides = n

FIG. 9. Circumscription efficiency as a function of n.

148 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

sided polygon by an m-sided polygon is

E* = lim E(n, m) = 2cotf. (14)

n-+m

Substituting m = 6 we get E* = 0.9069. E* may be considered as an upper bound

for the circumscription efficiency of polygons with a very large number of sides that
are contained within the unit circle.
For small n’s, better efficiency may be obtained, as, indeed, our results show. The
fact that for m = 6 and large n’s we asymptotically approach 0.9069 efficiency
provides numerical evidence for the optimal&y of our algorithm.
(3) Circumscription efficiency is fairly stable, as indicated by the standard deviation
and coefficient of variation of E (n, 6). Variation is slightly higher for large n ‘s;
however, not by any significant amount.
12. SUMMARY
An approach and an O(n) algorithm for optimal circumscription of convex
n-sided polygons by polygons of fewer sides are presented and illustrated. Our
approach follows a top-down stepwise refinement and reduction of the original
problem into simpler subproblems, the solution of all of which permits the solution
of the original problem.
We first show that the optimal (i.e., minimal area addition) circumscription of P,,
by P, (Problem 0) may be obtained by (n - m) iterative single side reductions
Cirnwm(P,,), in which Pnpl = Cir(P,), Pne2 = Cir(P,,-,) and so on, up to P, =
Cir(P,+,). Whenever a new basic side which is not tangent to P,, is introduced,
compression (Algorithm 3) is applied, insuring the optimal&y of the polygon at each
step. This process is described by Algorithm 0.
Single side reduction in stage i must be obtained by eliminating a specific vertex “;
from pn-i+l, and constructing Pnpi as follows (Figs. 4 and 5):
(1) Sj _ I and Sj are replaced by another side Sj’ which passes through V, .
(2) S’-2 and S’+l are extended until they meet Sj’.
(3) The remaining sides of P,,_ i coincide with those of P,,_ I + 1.
Finding the specifk vertex 5 of P,-,+ 1 which is eliminated in P,-, involves the
solution of n - i + 1 constrained single side reductions, formulated as Problem 2,
and eliminating that vertex 5 which causes minimal area addition R, to P,,- 1+ 1.
Finally, we show that the core of the solution of Problem 2 is the solution of the
triangle rotating side problem, formulated as Problem 3, which involves two kinds of
constrained single side reductions, external and internal, summarized by Theorems 8
and 9, respectively.
The algorithms for solving each one of the subproblems are applied bottom-up in
the following sequence.
Using the solution of the triangle rotating side problem, we solve the constrained
single side reduction Problem 2 by applying Algorithm 2.
The solution of the single side reduction problem, Cir( P,-,+ 1), is achieved by
solving n - i + 1 constrained single side reductions and selecting the eliminated
vertex as the one which causes minimal area addition to Pnpi. This is done by
Algorithm 1.
 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 149

Finally, the solution of our original problem is achieved by Algorithm 0, which is

an iterative application of Algorithm 1 combined with a check for the necessity of
compression (Algorithm 3), and compressing whenever it is possible.
We have applied the algorithm to a very large number of polygons with the
number of sides n varying from 7 to 50, which were circumscribed by hexagons, and
obtained an average efficiency of 96% with a standard deviation of 3.5%. As n
increases the circumscription efficiency decreases as was expected. Overall, however,
the algorithm proved to be very stable for any given n.
In Ref. [9] additional algorithms are presented, which transform the cir-
cumscribing polygon to a paver circumscribing polygon, thus enabling efficient
nesting of congruent convex figures in the plane.

APPENDIX A: PROOF OF THEOREM 1

In any polygon

i Ai = (n - 2)a. 64.1)
i=l

Suppose that S and S, are two nonadjacent basic sides in P,,, such that k # j f 1.
Denote
Zj=Aj+Aj+l CT (A4
and
Z, = A, + Ak+l -c T. (A4
Let

Z = i Ai -(Zj + Z,). (A4

r=l

From (A.2) and (A.3) we conclude that Zj + Z, < 2~. Using this result together
with (A.l), we conclude that Z > (n - 4)~. By its definition, Z is a sum of (n - 4)
angles in a convex polygon, and as such, it cannot exceed (n - 4)77. This contradicts
the assumption that Sj and S, are not adjacent.

APPENDIX B: PROOF OF THEOREM 2

From Theorem 1 it follows that all the basic sides of P,, must be adjacent. Without
loss of generality, the k basic sides may be denoted by S,, S,, . . . , S,. For each basic
side, A, + A,+ 1 -C 8. Adding the k resulting inequalities we get

2i Ai +(A, + Ak+l) < ka. (B-1)

i-2

Multiplying (A.l) by 2 we get

2 i A, = 2(n - 2)~ 03.2)

i=l
150 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

Rearranging (B.l) we get

k+l
2 c A; -(A, + A,,,) < ka. 03.3)
I=1

Subtracting (B.3) from (B.2) we get

2 2 A,+A,+A k+l > [2(n - 2) - k]a. (B.4)

i=k+2

The left-hand side of (B.4) is the sum of 2(n - k) angles of a convex polygon,
hence it cannot exceed 2(n - k)n. This implies

2(n - k)r > [2(n - 2) - k]T

which yields k < 4. Since k is the number of basic sides and hence must be an
integer, we conclude that BO(P,) I: 3, which proves the theorem.
APPENDIX C: PROOF OF THEOREM 3
We first note that a parallelogram has no basic side, a trapezoid has exactly one
basic side, and any other quadrilateral has exactly two basic sides, and never three.
Next, we assume that some convex polygon P,, with n 2 5 has three basic sides. By
Theorem 1, all three basic sides must be adjacent. Thus, they may be denoted by St,
S,, and S, without lack of generality. Using the definition of basic side we get

Al + A2 <?l
A, +A, < ?7
A, +A, < 77.

Adding the three inequalities we get

A, + 2(A, + As) + A, < 37r. W-1)

The sum of angles of a convex polygon P,, is

i A, = (n - 2)~. (C.2)
i==l

Subtracting (C.l) from (C.2) we get

ic5Ai -(A2 + A3) ’ (n - 5)~. (C-3)

Using the fact that A, + A, < n we get

(C.4)
 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 151

The left-hand side of (C.4) is the sum of n - 4 angles of a convex polygon, none
of which may exceed s, so we get a contradiction which proves our theorem.

APPENDIX D: PROOF OF THEOREM 4

By Theorem 123 if BO(P,) = BO(P,) then all of the (n - m) iterative side
reductions are internal. Since an internal side reduction in each iteration i, i =
L2,. . . , n - m, involves only the extension of two sides of I’,-,+ r and a correspond-
ing addition of a single triangle (whose area is denoted by q), all the m sides of
Pz = Cirnpm(Pn) are original or extensions of original sides of P,. Thus, when
BO( P,) = BO( P,), the problem of finding the optimal P, reduces to selecting one of
the ( l) possible P,,,‘s, each one of which is obtained as a continuation of m out of
the n sides of P, such that R( P,,,) is minimal.
Assume that Pz is not optimal with respect to P,. Then there exists P,,, for which
R(i),) < R( P,*). By Theorem 2, P,,, is also obtained by internal side reductions only.
Let t(t 5 n - m) denote the first iteration in which the triangle added in the process
of constructing P,,, differs from the one added when P,* is constructed. For that
particular iteration the area of the intermediate polygon associated with P,,, is smaller
than the area of Cir’(P,), which contradicts the definition of the “Cir” operation.
APPENDIX E: PROOF OF THEOREM 6
By definition (see Fig. 3)
V
cp = u and PB=
SillX sin(x + u)

and therefore

BC = CP + PB = -!-
sin x
+ ’
sin(x + u) . (E-1)
According to the sines theorem,

-=BC AC
sin a sin(n - x - u) .

Substituting (E-1) for BC we get

AC=si4x+4 u + 0
sina i sin x sin(x + a) 1 *

The height of the triangle from vertex B is

h,=u+v. smx
sm(x+a).
Substituting (E-2) and (E.3) in the formula for triangle area R = AC - h,/2 we
obtain (l), which proves the theorem.

‘The proof of Theorem 12 is not based on any of the theorems presented in this paper.
152 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

APPENDIX F: PROOF OF THEOREM 10

We have to show that q I K+i Vi, i = 1,2,. . . ,n - m - 1. Two cases are dis-
tinguished, according to whether the original vertices of P,, which are eliminated to
form q and q+i, are adjacent or not.
Case 1: Nonadjacent vertices. In this case q+i must be greater than or equal to
q, otherwise q+i rather than I] would have been added to P,,_ i+ 1.
Case 2: Adjacent vertices. Four combinations are distinguished:

(a) Both I; and T+, are results of internal side reductions.

(b) q and q.+i are results of internal and external side reductions, respectively.
(c) q. and q + i are results of external and internal side reductions, respectively.
(d) Both T. and 7;+, are results of external side reductions.

We shall examine each combination separately:

(a) By continuing S-i, T+i may be decomposed to q.1, and q.y i (see Fig.
F.l). T+i is a potential additional area for eliminating either I$ or I$+ i, but since T,
was selected before T; i, we conclude that lJ < T,> i, and therefore q < II+ i.
(b) Since T + I is a result of an external side reduction, it is composed of the two
triangles E,, i and E;+ i, the sum of which is q+ i (see Fig. F.2). By continuing S,,
E , + i is decomposed into E;;, i and Fi:i. As argued in (a), 4;,i 2 q, and since
1;;+1 -c Ei+l x Ti+l, we get T < 7;,,.
(c) By continuing Sj (see Fig. F.3), T+i is decomposed into Ei+l and E,I+,. As
argued in (a), E;,, 2 T, and since E,,, < q+i we get that q. < T+i.

FIG. F.l. Two consecutive internal side reductions

FIG. F.2. External after internal side reduction.

 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 153

FIG. F.3. Internal after external side reduction.

FIG. F.4. Two consecutive external side reductions, case 1.

(d) This combination is subdivided into two different cases:

(d.1) Aj + Aj+l + Aj+* 5 27r (see Fig. F.4). In this case, by continuing S,-i,
q, i may be decomposed into Ei+ i and E:+ 1 . Ei+, could have been added to the
polygon as a result of an external side reduction before q. However, since the
opposite occurred, this necessarily implies T < Ei+ 1, and since Ei+ 1 < q+ 1 we get
that T < q,,.
(d.2) Aj + Ajil + Aj+2 > 2a (see Fig. F.5). In this case, the elimination of
?+I before Y.-i would involve an internal side reduction first. Let Ei+, =
R(y, l$‘, q,,), Ei;, = R(q+,, Pj>,, c,,), and E;i, = min(Ei+,, Ei’,,). Eliminat-
ing q+, before Y.-i involves the addition of Ei’;, to the polygon, but since q was
added before, q s Ei’;,. On the other hand, from the analysis of the area function
we know that Ei’;, < q$l = R(T., I$“, b$+,) + R(c+2, y$, y,,), and since q:,
< %I we conclude that T < T + i.
154 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

FIG. F.5. Two consecutive external side reductions. case 2.

APPENDIX G: PROOF OF THEOREM 11

Two cases are distinguished according to the value of n.

(a) n = 4
In this case we will show that the area added to a quadrilateral P4 when only
nonbasic sides are eliminated to yield a triangle P3 is always smaller than the area
which is added to P4 when the elimination of at least one basic side is involved.
Any P4 which does not have a pair of parallel sides has two adjacent basic sides.
Since the sum of the angles of P4 is 2, the four possible side reductions must be
external. The four possibilities may be classified into three groups (see Figs. G.l and
G.2):
(1) replacing the two basic sides S, and S, (which is equivalent to eliminating
Vz) (see Fig. G.l);
(2) replacing the two nonbasic sides (which is equivalent to eliminating V,) (see
Fig. G.l);
(3) replacing one basic and one nonbasic side (which is equivalent to eliminat-
ing either V, or V,). In Fig. G-2, S, and S, are replaced and V, is eliminated.

The areas added to P4 in each one of the possibilities (1) (2) and (3) will be
denoted by R(l), R(2), and R(3), respectively. We will show that R(2) is smaller
than both R(1) and R(3).

“1
y------ --- “4 ---_ ,I
\ ----_
/ “3
1 S4 5 /
3 /
\
/
\“I : /
“3,
/’ \
/: K3
, ‘G, 5 tic,
/
/ \
, S? :
... \
/ 3
/ \
/ .... \
I,-‘_ ____________ .‘c’ ‘< .L----..- ------ Iv;
“I
“2

FIG. G.l. Replacing two nonbasic sides vs replacing two basic sides.
 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 155

FIG. G.2. Replacing two nonbasic sides vs replacing one nonbasic and one basic side.

Referring to Fig. G.l, we may write

R(l) = R( VI, v;, b) f R( v,, v;, v,) (G.1)

and
R(2) = R( VI, v;l, v4) + R( v,, y, v4). (G.2)
By passing the dotted lines (V,, G,) and (V,, G3) parallel to S, and S,, respec-
tively, and (V,, K,) and (V,, K3) parallel to S, and S,, respectively, two parallelo-
grams (G,, V2, G,, V,) and (K,, V,, K,, V,) are formed.
Denote their areas by R,(l) and R,(2), respectively. Since the second parallelo-
gram is contained within the first one (see Fig. G.l),

$Al) > q2L (G.3)

R,(l) = R(G,, v;, 5) + R(G,, v,l, 5) (G.4)
and

On the other hand, since

R(V;,h’,F/,)‘$W’;,&)
and

R(V,,&‘,v,) ’ R(G&‘,&) (see Fig. G.l),

we get from (G.l) and (G.4)

W) ’ ql).
156 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

By similar considerations we get from (G.2) and (G.5)

W) ’ $m

which, by (G.3), implies

R(1) > R(2). c3.6)

This completes the first part of case (a).

Turning to Fig. G.2, we may write

Passing the dotted lines (V,l, V;‘) and (Vi, V;‘) parallel to S, and S, respectively, we
get

and

where “A” denotes a triangle.

Therefore, by (G.2)

R(2) = R( v,, VT VI, YJ,

and by (G.7)

R(3) = R(v,, v;l, v;, v,).

Considering the fact that I( V,, Vr’) = I( V,, Vi) and that the corresponding angles
of the two quadrilaterals (V,, Vt’, V;l, V,) and (Vi, V,, V,, Vq’) are equal, then by
lengthening S, till G,, where its length equalizes the length of S,, and passing the
line (G,, G4) parallel to S,, we get a quadrilateral (Vi, V,, G,, G4) which is congruent
to (V,, V[, VF, V2). Since

R(3) = R(2) + R(v,, G,,6, v;l)

we conclude that

R(3) ’ R(2),

which completes the proof of case (a).

 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 157

FIG. G.3. Eliminating a basic side vs eliminating a nonbasic side in the case n L 5.

(b) n 2 5

Figure G.3 illustrates a situation where the following conditions are met:
(1) n = 5.
(2) St is a basic side, but S, and S, are nearly parallel.
(3) S, is relatively very short.
(4) The distance h of V, from S, is the same as its distance. from S,.
This is the worst case situation, because any possible change in one or more of the
above conditions causes an increase of the area R, added. to P,, when S, is eliminated
and/or a decrease of the area R, added to P, when S, is eliminated. We will show
that even in this case R, < R, which prevents the elimination of St.

Let S211S5 (G-8)

and

(G-9)
and denote

and

I(&;, K) = c.

The only way S, may be eliminated is by a nonconstrained external side reduction of

S,. Assume this has happened; then

QT-dy) = @2x), (G.lO)

158 DORI AND BEN-BASSAT

which implies

By G.8 and G.lO, triangles

are similar with a ratio of 2 : 1 which implies

I( vi, vi) = 2Z(V*, v,) = 2(b + c).

Since

(b:,6) <b+2c

we get

R, = fd(V,, S,) .1( v,, V;) < $h(b + 2c),

and

R, =R(I/,,V;,V,)+R(F:,V,,V~)
= $[2hb + 2h(b + c)] = h(2b + c).

Since R, is always less than R,, S, will never disappear.

APPENDIX H: PROOF OF THEOREM 12

External side reduction involves the elimination of one vertex VJ, and substitution
of v/-r and c+l by CL1 and y.;,, respectively (see Fig. 4). Since y is eliminated in
an external side reduction

A, + A,el + A,,, < 2.7. (H.1)

and Ajil are external angles of the triangles (5, 5 ~, , v/I 1) and
(V”;lJ, J+,, y;,),
respectively, and as such, Ajpl = A;-.l + B and Aj+l = AJ+1 -i- B’.
By adding the two equations, we get

Aj-1 + Aj+l = A;+1 + A;& + B + B’. 03.2)

Adding Aj to both sides, we get

Aj + Ajel + Aj+l = A(+1 + A;el + B + B’ + Aj.

 CIRCUMSCRIBING A CONVEX POLYGON 159

From (H.l), and using the fact that B + B’ + Aj = IT, we get

A;+1 + A;-, < 7~

which implies that Sj’ is a basic side by definition.

REFERENCES
1. P. C. Gilmore and R. E. Gomory, A linear programming approach to the cutting stock problem,
Oper. Res. 9, 1961, 849-859.
2. P. C. Gilmore and R. E. Gomory, Multistage cutting problems of two and more dimensions, Oper.
Res. 13, 1965, 94-120.
3. P. C. Gilmore and R. E. Gomory, The theory and computation of knapsack functions, Oper. Res. 15,
1967, 1045-1075.
4. N. Christofides and C. Whitlock, An algorithm for two dimensional cutting problems, Oper. Res. 25,
1977, 30-44.
5. P. De Cani, A note on the two dimensional rectangular cutting stock problem, J. Oper. Res. Sot.
Amer. 29 (7), 1978, 703-706.
6. R. B. Kershner, On paving the plane, Amer. Mu#b. Monthly 75, 1968, 839-844.
7. M. R. Spiegel, Mathematical Handbook of Formulas and Tables (Schaum’s Outline Series),
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
8. A. Albano and R. Orsini, A heuristic solution of the rectangular cutting stock problem, Comput. J. 23,
1979, 338-343.
9. D. Dori and M. Ben-Bassat, Efficient nesting of congruent convex figures, Comm. Assoc. Comput.
Much ., in press.
10. J. Sklansky and V. Gonzalez, Fast Polygonal Approximation of Digitized Curves, Pattern Recognition,
August 1979.
11. V. Klee, “A linear-time algorithm that finds all local minima among triangles containing a given
convex polygon,” Proceedings, V. Symposium on Operations Research, Kijln, August 1980.
12. H. Freeman and R. Shapira, Determining the minimum area encasing rectangle for an arbitrary
closed curve, Comm. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 18, 1975,409-413.
13. G. T. Toussaint, “Pattern recognition and geometrical complexity,” 5th International Conference on
Pattern Recognition, pp. 1324-1347, Miami Beach, Fla., December 1979.
14. D. P. Dobkin and L. Snyder, “On a general method of m axinking and minimizing among certain
geometric problems,” Proceedings, 20th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Puerto
Rico, October 1979.
15. L. Devroye, On the computer generation of random convex hulls, Comput. Math. Appl. 8,1982,1-13.