glen/dyna3
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 11 Pull Requests 1 Actions Projects Releases 2 Wiki Activity

doc: Add Aaron's observations on inversive coords

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Glen Whitney 2023-11-06 11:47:53 -08:00
parent daed435826
commit 15159302c3
1 changed files with 20 additions and 17 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

37
notes/inversive.md
View File

@ -4,23 +4,26 @@
These coordinates are of form $I=(c, r, x, y, z)$ where we think of $c$ as the co-radius, $r$ as the radius, and $x, y, z$ as the "Euclidean" part, which we abbreviate $E_I$. There is an underlying basic quadratic form $Q(I_1,I_2) = (c_1r_2+c_2r_1)/2 - x_1x_2 -y_1y_2-z_1z_2$ which aids in calculation/verification of coordinates in this representation. We have: These coordinates are of form $I=(c, r, x, y, z)$ where we think of $c$ as the co-radius, $r$ as the radius, and $x, y, z$ as the "Euclidean" part, which we abbreviate $E_I$. There is an underlying basic quadratic form $Q(I_1,I_2) = (c_1r_2+c_2r_1)/2 - x_1x_2 -y_1y_2-z_1z_2$ which aids in calculation/verification of coordinates in this representation. We have:
| Entity or Relationship | Representation | Comments/questions | | Entity or Relationship | Representation | Comments/questions |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Sphere s with radius r>0 centered on P = (x,y,z) | $I_s = (1/c, 1/r, x/r, y/r, z/r)$ satisfying $Q(I_s,I_s) = -1$, i.e., $c = r/(\|P\|^2 - r^2)$. | Can also write $I_s = (\|P\|^2/r - r, 1/r, x/r. y/r, z/r)$ -- so there is no trouble if $\|E_{I_s}\| = r$, just get first coordinate to be 0. | | Sphere s with radius r>0 centered on P = (x,y,z) | $I_s = (1/c, 1/r, x/r, y/r, z/r)$ satisfying $Q(I_s,I_s) = -1$, i.e., $c = r/(\|P\|^2 - r^2)$. | Can also write $I_s = (\|P\|^2/r - r, 1/r, x/r. y/r, z/r)$ -- so there is no trouble if $\|E_{I_s}\| = r$, just get first coordinate to be 0. |
| Plane p with unit normal (x,y,z), a distance s from origin | $I_p = (2s, 0, x, y, z)$ | Note $Q(I_p, I_p)$ is still -1. | | Plane p with unit normal (x,y,z), a distance s from origin | $I_p = (2s, 0, x, y, z)$ | Note $Q(I_p, I_p)$ is still -1. Also, there are two representations for each plane through the origin, namely $(0,0,x,y,z)$ and $(0,0,-x,-y,-z)$ |
| Point P with Euclidean coordinates (x,y,z) | $I_P = (\|P\|^2, 1, x, y, z)$ | Note $Q(I_P,I_P) = 0$.  Why are we taking this rather than $(\|P\|, \|P\|, x, y, z)$ or $(1/\|P\|,\|P\|, x/\|P\|, y/\|P\|, z/\|P\|)$ ? I guess latter has trouble with the origin, for one. Perhaps this is the (only) choice that make some of the following true? | | Point P with Euclidean coordinates (x,y,z) | $I_P = (\|P\|^2, 1, x, y, z)$ | Note $Q(I_P,I_P) = 0$.  Because of this we might choose  some other scaling of the inversive coordinates, say $(\||P\||,1/\||P\||,x/\||P\||,y/\||P\||,z/\||P\||)$ instead, but that fails at the origin, and likely won't have some of the other nice properties listed below.  Note that scaling just the co-radius by $s$ and the radius by $1/s$ (which still preserves $Q=0$) dilates by a factor of $s$ about the origin, so that $(\|P\|, \|P\|, x, y, z)$, which might look symmetric, would actually have to represent the Euclidean point $(x/\||P\||, y/\||P\||, z/\||P\||)$ . |
| P lies on sphere or plane given by I | $Q(I_P, I) = 0$ | | | ∞, the "point at infinity" | $I_\infty = (1,0,0,0,0)$ | The only solution to $Q(I,I) = 0$ not covered by the above case. |
| Sphere/planes represented by I and J are tangent | $Q(I,J) = 1$ | | | P lies on sphere or plane given by I | $Q(I_P, I) = 0$ | |
| P is center of sphere represented by I | Well, $Q(I_P, I)$ comes out to be $(\|P\|^2/r - r + \|P\|^2/r)/2 - \|P\|^2/r$ or just $-r/2$ . | Is it if and only if ?   No this probably doesn't work because center is not conformal quantity. | | Sphere/planes represented by I and J are tangent | $Q(I,J) = 1$ (??, see note at right) | Seems as though this must be $Q(I,J) = \pm1$  ? For example, the $xy$ plane represented by (0,0,0,0,1)  is tangent to the unit circle centered at (0,0,1) rep'd by (0,1,0,0,1), but their Q-product is -1. And in general you can reflect any sphere tangent to any plane through the plane and it should flip the sign of $Q(I,J)$, if I am not mistaken. |
| Distance between P and R is d | $Q(I_P, I_R) = d^2/2$ | | | Sphere/planes represented by I and J intersect (respectively, don't intersect) | $\|Q(I,J)\| < (\text{resp. }>)\; 1$ | Follows from the angle formula, at least conceptually. |
| Distance between P and sphere/plane rep by I | | | | P is center of sphere represented by I | Well, $Q(I_P, I)$ comes out to be $(\|P\|^2/r - r + \|P\|^2/r)/2 - \|P\|^2/r$ or just $-r/2$ . | Is it if and only if ?   No this probably doesn't work because center is not conformal quantity. |
| Distance between sphere/planes rep by I and J | | Q(I,J)=cosh^2 (d/2) maybe where d is distance in usual hyperbolic metric. Or maybe cosh d | | Distance between P and R is d | $Q(I_P, I_R) = d^2/2$ | |
| Sphere centered on P through R | | Probably just calculate distance etc. | | Distance between P and sphere/plane rep by I | | In the very simple case of a plane $I$ rep'd by $(2s, 0, x, y, z)$ and a point $P$ that lies on its perpendicular through the origin, rep'd by $(r^2, 1, rx, ry, rz)$ we get $Q(I, I_p) = s-r$, which is indeed the signed distance between $I$ and $P$. Not sure if this generalizes to other combinations? |
| Dihedral angle between planes (or spheres?) rep by I and J | | cosh t = cos it s Q(I, J) = cos theta. | | Distance between sphere/planes rep by I and J | Note that for any two Euclidean-concentric spheres rep by $I$ and $J$ with radius $r$ and $s,$ $Q(I,J) = -\frac12\left(\frac rs  + \frac sr\right)$ depends only on the ratio of $r$ and $s$. So this can't give something that determines the Euclidean distance between the two spheres, which presumably grows as the two spheres are blown up proportionally. For another example, for any two parallel planes, $Q(I,J) = \pm1$. | Alex had said: Q(I,J)=cosh^2 (d/2) maybe where d is distance in usual hyperbolic metric. Or maybe cosh d. That may be right depending on what's meant by the hyperbolic metric there, but it seems like it won't determine a reasonable Euclidean distance between planes, which should differ between different pairs of parallel planes. |
| R, P, S are collinear | Maybe just cross product of two differences. | Not a conformal property. | | Sphere centered on P through R | | Probably just calculate distance etc. |
| Plane through noncollinear R, P, S | Should be, just solve Q(I, I_R) = 0 etc. | | | Plane rep'd by I goes through center of sphere rep'd by J | I think this is equivalent to the plane being perpendicular to the sphere, i.e.$Q(I,J) = 0$. | |
| circle | Maybe concentric sphere and the containing plane? | Defn: circle is intersection of two spheres. That does cover lines. But you lose the canonicalness | | Dihedral angle between planes (or spheres?) rep by I and J | $\theta = \arccos(Q(I,J))$ | Aaron Fenyes points out: The angle between spheres in $S^3$ matches the angle between the planes they bound in $R^{(1,4)}$, which matches the angle between the spacelike vectors perpendicular to those planes. So we should have $Q(I,J) = \cos\theta$. Note that when the spheres do not intersect, we can interpret this as the "imaginary angle" between them, via $\cosh t = \cos it$. |
| line | Maybe two containing planes? Maybe the perpendicular plane through origin and the point of line on it? Or maybe just as a bag of collinear points? | The first is the limiting case of the possible circle rep, but it is not canonical. The second appears to be canonical, but I don't see a circle rep that corresponds to it. | | R, P, S are collinear | Maybe just cross product of two differences is 0. Or, $R,P,S,\infty$ lie on a circle, or equivalently, $I_R,I_P,I_S,I_\infty$ span a plane (rather than a three-space). | Not a conformal property, but $R,P,S,\infty$ lying on a circle _is_. |
| Plane through noncollinear R, P, S | Should be, just solve Q(I, I_R) = 0 etc. | |
| circle | Maybe concentric sphere and the containing plane? Note it is easy to constrain the relationship between those two: they must be perpendicular. | Defn: circle is intersection of two spheres. That does cover lines. But you lose the canonicalness |
| line | Maybe two perpendicular containing planes? Maybe the plane perpendicular to the line and through origin, together with the point of the line on that plane? Or maybe just as a bag of collinear points? | The first is the limiting case of the possible circle rep, but it is not canonical. The second appears to be canonical, but I don't see a circle rep that corresponds to it. |
The unification of spheres/planes is indeed attractive for a project like Dyna3. The relationship between this representation and Geometric Algebras is a bit murky; likely it somehow fits under the Geometric Algebra umbrella. The unification of spheres/planes is indeed attractive for a project like Dyna3. The relationship between this representation and Geometric Algebras is a bit murky; likely it somehow fits under the Geometric Algebra umbrella.