- How much oxygen and hydrogen are in the soil of Mars?
- Why is hydrazine used in arcjet thrusters?
- How does Accion System's TILE propulsion module compare to an equivalently sized Hall effect or an Ion thruster?
- Particles changing color based on camera position?
- Blender .STL exports are too small when imported in Sli3er
- Version 2.8 or 2.79 to start learning Blender?
- Looking for advice on realizing Blender scanner type project, maybe using sensors in Game Engine?
- Whether every router in a AS must have its RouterID?
- What does “pacing his study” mean in this context?
- “We do me old” What does it mean?
- What is it called when someone says “I guess I expected too much from you”
- Difference was killed and killed
- Magento 2 Add New Integration error
- Magento 2 How to make changes to Bundle product edit detail page?
- How to specific pass fields in custom rest api for get product Information
- Magento2.1 Consumer is not authorized to access %resources
- Set Category wise Discount in Magento2
- Import product CSV to magento
- Future Lucy's right hand?
- Nanatsu no Taizai: Whats the first song at the beginning of episode 1 OVA

# Blindly removing inessential diagonals from a triangulation can lead to a bad convex partitioning

Assume that a simple polygon $P$ and a triangulation of it only using the diagonals is given. We say a diagonal $d$ is essential for vertex $v$ if removing $d$ creates a piece that is nonconvex at $v$.

Hertel and Mehlhorn proposed an algorithm for partitioning a polygon to convex pieces. The algorithm says: Start with a triangulation of $P$ (which uses only diagonals). Remove an inessential diagonal; Repeat.

As you see, this algorithm blindly selects an inessential diagonal and is not so intelligent. It is proved that the algorithm is never worse than 4-times optimal in the number of convex pieces.

Now, the question is:

Is there any hope of improving the optimality constant of this algorithm below 4? Suppose the choice of diagonals were made more intelligently. Is a constant of, say, 3 possible?

Note: First I thought of choosing any combination of diagonals and see which of them results in better removal and a better number of convex pieces. But the probl