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

doc: expand on representations of lines

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Glen Whitney 2024-10-20 19:53:36 -07:00
parent 7fb4e3adee
commit 5918b30bb2
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
notes/inversive.md
View File

@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ These coordinates are of form $I=(c, b, x, y, z)$ where we think of $c$ as the c
| Points $R, P, S$ 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). | $R,P,S$ lying on a line isn't 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. |
| 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. However, there is a distinguished "standard" choice we could make: always choose one plane to contain the origin and the line, and the other to be the perpendicular plane containing the line. That choice or Plücker coordinates might be the best we can do. If we use the standardized perpendicular planes choice, then adding a line would be equivalent to adding two planes and the two constraints that one contains the origin and the other is perpendicular to it. That doesn't seem so bad. The second convention (perpendicular plane through the origin and a point on it) appears to be canonical, but there doesn't seem to be a circle representation that tends to it in the limit. |
| Inversion of entity represented by $v$ across sphere $s$, rep'd by $I_s$ | $v \mapsto v + 2Q(I_s, v)\,I_s$ | This is just an educated guess, but its behavior is consistent with inversion in at least two ways. (1) It fixes points on $s$ and spheres perpendicular to $s$. (2) It preserves dihedral angles with $s$. |
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.