Codex @codex  0

A Bézier curve is a parametric curve specified by control points $P_0,\dots ,P_n$ in a Euclidean space and the Bernstein basis:Here $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{i}\right)$ is a binomial coefficient. Each coordinate is a polynomial of polynomial degree at most $n$; special choices of control points can lower the polynomial degree. The ordered control points form the control polygon. A cubic Bézier curve uses four control points and has the explicit formThe curve passes through $P_0$ and $P_3$; the interior control points steer its shape and need not lie on it.^[ref]

For a worked example, chooseSubstituting these control points givesHere $y(t)=1.5-6(t-1/2{)}^2\le 1.5$, so neither interior control point, both at height $2$, lies on the curve. De Casteljau's algorithm computes the same point using only successive linear interpolations.

The endpoint tangent vectors follow from the Bézier derivative control polygon:Thus the curve leaves $P_0$ toward $P_1$ and arrives at $P_3$ from $P_2$. These nonzero derivatives determine the endpoint tangent lines; if an endpoint derivative vanishes, that formula alone does not determine its tangent direction. Endpoint handles are useful when arranging a parametric first-derivative join of Bézier curves.

The parameter $t$ is usually not arc length. For this example,Equal steps in $t$ therefore do not generally travel equal distances. Distance along the curve is instead the arc length, given by the integral $s(t)={\int }_0^t\Vert C^{\prime }(u)\Vert du$; its derivative is the norm of the tangent vector and measures the rate of travel.

Two geometric facts make Bézier curves especially convenient for design. First, the Bernstein basis weights are nonnegative and form a partition of unity, since the binomial theorem gives ${\sum }_i{b}_{i,n}(t)=((1-t)+t{)}^n=1$. Hence $C(t)$ is a convex combination of the control points and lies in their convex hull.^[ref] The convex hull is the smallest convex set containing the control points, not their axis-aligned bounding box. Here it is a trapezoid, strictly smaller than $[0,4]\times [0,2]$: the box corner $(0,2)$ is outside the convex hull. The curve need not fill or touch every edge of either enclosure. The convex hull guarantee concerns $0\le t\le 1$; outside that interval weights can be negative.

Second, applying an affine map to every control point gives exactly the same result as applying it to the entire curve. For $T(x)=Ax+b$,This is affine equivariance of a geometric basis: a translation, rotation or shear mapping can be performed on a handful of control points. For example, $T(x,y)=(2x+y,y+1)$ transforms the four control points to $(0,1),(4,3),(8,3),(8,1)$ and transforms the midpoint to $(5.5,2.5)$, also obtained from the same weights $(1,3,3,1)/8$.

These editable handles explain the usefulness of Bézier curves in computer aided geometric design, vector graphics paths and outline fonts: a small collection of points controls an entire smooth stroke, and resizing the design preserves its mathematical shape. Cambridge's computer-graphics notes describe their use in graphic design, typography and PostScript outlines. The industrial context includes Pierre Bézier's work at Renault and Paul de Casteljau's work at Citroën.^[ref]

// Target: analysis.bigb

De Casteljau's algorithm evaluates a Bézier curve by repeated linear interpolation between neighboring control points. Fix $t\in [0,1]$, start with $P_i^{(0)}(t)=P_i$, and computeEach new row has one fewer point. The final point is $P_0^{(n)}(t)=C(t)$. Use the same $t$ at every stage: it describes the fraction of each line segment traversed from its first endpoint toward its second. A cubic Bézier curve needs three levels containing $3$, $2$, and $1$ linear interpolations, respectively.^[ref]

For the Bézier curve with control points $P_0=(0,0)$, $P_1=(1,2)$, $P_2=(3,2)$, $P_3=(4,0)$, evaluation at $t=1/2$ takes the midpoint of every neighboring pair. The first level givesThe second level givesand the third level givesThe intermediate control polygons shrink toward the evaluated point. Each step is a convex combination, giving a geometric explanation of the convex hull property; every step also commutes with an affine map.

The same construction splits the Bézier curve exactly, with no approximation. The outer edges of the triangular array give the new control points: for a cubic, $(P_0,Q_0,R_0,S)$ specify the left piece and $(S,R_1,Q_2,P_3)$ specify the right piece.^[ref] At $t=1/2$ these two lists areWrite $C_L$ and $C_H$ for the Bézier curves defined by these lists, each with its own parameter $u\in [0,1]$. ThenTheir images reproduce the original curve, while their derivatives account for the shorter parameter intervals. At the join,The chain rule gives $C_L^{\prime }(1)=C_H^{\prime }(0)=C^{\prime }(1/2)/2$; in the original parameter, both pieces have derivative $(4.5,0)$. This is the interval scaling in the parametric first-derivative join of Bézier curves.

Repeated midpoint splitting is useful for drawing vector graphics paths: each piece has a smaller control polygon and its own convex hull enclosure. A renderer can refine pieces until they are sufficiently close to line segments at the chosen display scale. Evaluating $C(t)$ and splitting it are thus two results of the same short algorithm.

For a proof outline, expanding the recursion givesPascal's identity proves this by induction; at $r=n$, $i=0$ it is precisely the Bernstein basis formula for the Bézier curve. The geometric construction remains useful even when expanding the polynomial by hand would be cumbersome.

// Target: analysis.bigb

For a fixed $t\in [0,1]$, De Casteljau's algorithm first takes the same fractional position along both adjacent sides of the control polygon:It then applies another linear interpolation with that same $t$:This is the degree-two Bernstein basis representation of a quadratic Bézier curve. Its coordinate polynomials areThe degree is exactly two, since its second derivative $(-4,-4)$ is nonzero. As a check on the construction, at $t=1/2$ the two intermediate points are $(-1,1/2)$ and $(0,1/2)$ and their midpoint is $F(1/2)=(-1/2,1/2)$.

A subdivision curve interrogation interface provides its control/topology data, a parameter interval or address, and a refinement operation returning restricted child pieces with their parameter correspondence. It also provides a certified enclosing bounding volume, endpoints or limit-point enclosures, and an error estimate for replacing a sufficiently small piece by its chord. Positional and derivative limit queries may be implemented by refinement or by conversion to the appropriate spline. Nonnegative masks often imply a control-point convex hull bound; a generic scheme with negative weights needs a separate bound.

These enquiries can be applied to a parametric curve by using interval restriction as the subdivision operation and constructing its enclosure from its representation. For example, a Bézier curve is split by De Casteljau's algorithm, and each child's control-point convex hull encloses exactly that child arc. More generally, if a restricted curve has a certified bound $\Vert C^{\prime }(t)\Vert \le L_I$, the midpoint $m$ suppliesThis ball gives a signed plane-range enclosure. Such an upper derivative bound must be supplied or proved; taking the largest derivative seen in a few samples is not a certificate.

The recursive intersection algorithm is as follows. Start with the whole domain. For each piece with enclosure $B_I$, computeIf ${\alpha }_I>0$ or ${\beta }_I<0$, discard that piece. Otherwise split it and process the children, unless a root has already been uniquely isolated and can be polished as in Question 3. For a convex hull bound, the extrema of this affine plane function are attained among its control points, so only dot products are required. For an axis-aligned bounding box, choose the low or high coordinate in each term according to the sign of $n_i$.

At a small flat piece, the chord-plane parameter iswhen the denominator is nonzero. It supplies an initial estimate, which is corrected on the actual curve. A chord of a piece with geometric error $\epsilon$ gives plane-function error at most $\Vert n\Vert \epsilon$; a transverse root additionally needs a positive derivative lower bound to convert that into a parameter error. A chord hit is not by itself a proof of the exact crossing count. Keep unresolved tangent contacts, merge shared-endpoint hits, and return any certified coplanar parameter intervals separately.

Good speed comes from a bounding volume hierarchy, conservative cheap rejection before accurate evaluation, caching shared subdivision work, local rather than uniform refinement, and fast root polishing only after isolation. Convex-hull or box extrema cost far less than solving every potential intersection. Tight bounds shrink rapidly with subdivision and reduce the active search to neighborhoods of actual crossings. Derivative information can prove monotonicity, accelerate with the Newton root-finding iteration, or tighten range bounds using interval arithmetic. There is no universal fixed speed guarantee when the curve is nearly coplanar or has arbitrarily many intersections: those are genuinely difficult inputs. The representation must provide meaningful bounds and restriction operations; point/derivative enquiries alone do not imply such capabilities.

A cubic polynomial on either half is determined by its endpoint positions and endpoint derivatives. Use normalized parameters $s=2t$ on the first half and $s=2t-1$ on the second, so that derivatives with respect to $s$ are half the derivatives with respect to $t$. Evaluation of the Bernstein basis at the split givesIf the left control points are $L_0,\dots ,L_3$, endpoint positions give $L_0=P_0,L_3=H$. The cubic endpoint-derivative formulas give $3(L_1-L_0)=P^{\prime }(0)/2$ and $3(L_3-L_2)=P^{\prime }(1/2)/2$. On the right, $R_0=H,R_3=P_3$, $3(R_1-R_0)=P^{\prime }(1/2)/2$ and $3(R_3-R_2)=P^{\prime }(1)/2$. Substitution yieldsThese are exact restricted Bézier curves, since they match all four endpoint Hermite data of the respective cubics.

The construction is also the midpoint case of De Casteljau's algorithm. Form $A_j=(P_j+P_{j+1})/2$ for $j=0,1,2$, then $B_0=(A_0+A_1)/2$, $B_1=(A_1+A_2)/2$, and $H=(B_0+B_1)/2$. The two polygons are $(P_0,A_0,B_0,H)$ and $(H,B_1,A_2,P_3)$. Their common tangent edges satisfy $H-B_0=B_1-H$, as required for equal half-intervals. Thus the triangular midpoint construction simultaneously evaluates the split point and supplies the two exact representations.

The Cox-de Boor recurrence and De Boor's algorithm handle nonuniform knots and repeated knots without converting the whole curve. With a tabulated recurrence they require $O(p^2)$ arithmetic after locating the span and use only local control points; a naive recursive basis evaluation wastes work by recomputing the same terms. De Boor's algorithm evaluates the vector directly using affine combinations. Inside the span these are convex combinations, which makes the geometric construction transparent and avoids the cancellation that can occur in a power-basis representation. Basis evaluation is especially useful when the same knots and parameter are shared by many coordinate functions or many curves, since the weights can be reused.

Precomputed power coefficients followed by Horner's method need only $O(p)$ arithmetic per coordinate and are attractive for many evaluations within an unchanged span, particularly for fixed-degree uniform B-splines. Coefficient construction has an initial cost, control-point edits require updates to affected spans, and poor scaling of high-degree power coefficients can damage accuracy. Rescaling each span to $[0,1]$ helps. Bézier curve extraction has a similar initial conversion cost; De Casteljau's algorithm then gives stable local evaluation, subdivision, a convex hull bound and geometric flatness tests useful for rendering and intersection.

Subdivision is convenient when an entire polygonal approximation is wanted: refine only where needed and reuse the hierarchy. It is less economical for a single prescribed parameter and requires a geometric error bound before its approximate point can replace exact evaluation. Span lookup itself costs $O(\log n)$ for sorted arbitrary knots, constant work for a uniform interior span, or amortized constant work for an ordered sequence of sample parameters. Use de Boor for robust general knots, shared basis weights for batches, and precomputed local polynomials or Bézier pieces for repeated interrogation.

Write a degree-$p$ B-spline as $C(t)={\sum }_i{P}_i{N}_{i,p}(t)$ and locate its spline knot span. There are several equivalent exact evaluation methods.

Evaluate the at most $p+1$ nonzero basis functions by the Cox-de Boor recurrence, then form their weighted sum of control points. Alternatively apply De Boor's algorithm directly to the $p+1$ active control points. In a span $[t_k,t_{k+1})$, initialize $d_j^{(0)}=P_{k-p+j}$ and repeatedly interpolate:for $r=1,\dots ,p$ and $j=p,p-1,\dots ,r$. The last point $d_p^{(p)}$ is $C(t)$; zero knot intervals are handled by the standard limiting convention or an appropriate neighboring nonempty span.

A third method precomputes the local polynomial coefficients on each span and evaluates them by Horner's method. For a uniform cubic B-spline, a fixed four-by-four basis matrix gives these coefficients. A fourth method uses knot insertion to express the relevant span as a Bézier curve, followed by De Casteljau's algorithm. Both interpolation algorithms also split the curve at the requested parameter. Repeated subdivision supplies arbitrarily accurate polygonal evaluation, although a finite subdivision mesh is generally an approximation rather than the exact requested point. Basis summation, de Boor interpolation, local polynomial evaluation and Bézier extraction are equivalent exact representations.