Exercise_16_08

[csv77]

Hi,
I have found a little mistake in Exercise_16_08. The method isIntersect() examines wether the two circles intersect or not. This method gives true also in case of one containing the other. The method can correct like this:
public boolean isIntersect() {
double distance = Math.sqrt(Math.pow(c1.getCenterX() - c2.getCenterX(), 2) +
Math.pow(c1.getCenterY() - c2.getCenterY(), 2));
return distance < c1.getRadius() + c2.getRadius() &&
distance > Math.max(c1.getRadius(), c2.getRadius()) - Math.min(c1.getRadius(), c2.getRadius());
}
Bye,
Csaba

[SleekPanther]

I would argue that what @jsquared21 currently has is the correct implementation. If a smaller circle is completely contained inside a larger circle, then I would say that every part of the smaller circle overlaps with some part of the larger circle and they would be intersecting.
It's just like 2 intersecting sets. You could have a typical Venn Diagram where A & B are different sets and neither set equals the union, but you could also have A be a subset of B, then A is contained completely in B so the intersection of A & B is equal to the set A. But they would still be intersecting, or overlapping, however you want to refer to it
Point is, I think what exists is the better way of doing it

[csv77]

Hi,
Thx for your answer. I think if we speak about clusters, you're completely right. I am not sure in case of geometry the concept of intersection has exactly the same meaning. In exercise 14_23 it was distinguished if one rectangle containes the other, and if one overlaps the other. That's why I thought it could be distinguished here also. But I can accept your arguments, it is the question of definitions, so maybe I think it wrong.