The two objectives (triangle-triangle area of overlap and enclosed area of a self-intersecting quadrilateral) I mentioned earlier I'm pretty sure have not been tackled yet. Not analytically, in any case. More like almost certain.
So in that sense I already did my homework and it really seems to me this is new ground.
But how would I go about really checking the novelty of my ideas so as to be certain (not almost) that I'm treading new ground?
I mean a good way to know. Not asking someone in the field.
Cause there is no-one (that I know) in the field of analytical overlap geometry. I don't think there even is such field.
And I don't know anyone who could be qualified an expert on analytical solutions to the areas of self-intersecting polygons either.
Where could I enlist the help/guidance of such experts?
Look it up on arxiv.org? Did that, nothing.
It's like such problems are too basic to even register with professionals even though they seem fundamental to me.
An analytical solution to triangle-triangle overlap, for instance, would have immediate, extremely useful applications.
From a trivial view frustum test to exclude all triangles that have no area in common with the screen rectangle to raster image resizing, collision detection and so on.
Also, the path to an analytical solution to tetrahedron-tetrahedron common volume would then be foreseeable. Which would have even greater implications for collision detection.
I really don't think such works, successfully completed, wouldn't amount to anything. Even if the papers they're espoused in are written by foot.
People used to do math much less formally centuries ago and yet their work isn't discounted for it. It does amount to something, even if it wasn't typeset in latex but rather penned in ink and feather.