create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
 Everything Diaries Technology Science Culture Politics Media News Internet Op-Ed Fiction Meta MLP

Section 2: Reflections, Rotations, and Reversion

In this section, two basic operations will be described in some detail while a third will be described at a high level. The first two are no more important than the third, but they are more easily understood at a introductory level.

----Reflections----
Anyone who has been in front of a mirror for some time knows that mirrors flip our perception of direction by redirecting the light we use to interpret the world around us. There is an acoustic version of a mirror that redirects sound we hear misleading us into thinking the source lies in another direction from where it actually is. In a geometric sense, mirrors redirect the orientation of some geometric magnitudes without altering scale. The curved mirrors one would find in a funhouse do alter scale, so it is only flat mirrors that will be considered as the intuitional model for our reflection operation.

In order to mimic the actions of a mirror, we should construct an operation that reorients objects constructed within R(3,0). This operation enables us to translate a piece of our intuition into mathematics for later use. The reflection operator will be demonstrated with a few examples and then written in a general form.

Start with an oriented line segment for our test object and a directed plane segment with an area of one for our mirror. We know what a line's reflection in a mirror should look like, so it is the easiest place to start. In general, part of a line is perpendicular to a mirror while the other part is parallel to the surface. It is the perpendicular portion that gets reoriented by a planar mirror.

Mirror = M = M12e12 + M13e13 + M23e23 = ∑ Mijeij
where the sum counts all possible two index objects and the M's with indices are just real numbers. So M is a linear combination of basis plane segments.

Line = L = L1e1 + L2e2 + L3e3 = ∑ Lkek
where the sum counts all possible one index objects and the L's with indices are just real numbers. Our line, therefore, is a linear combination of basis line segments.

Because planes can be described in terms of the area spanned by two directed line segments, we can refer to our mirror M as a product of two perpendicular line segments. In other words, we could write M = AB where A and B are perpendicular and have unit lengths. Any pair of unit line segments work for A and B as long as they are in the M plane and perpendicular. Lets chose A to be in the same direction as the direction of the part of the line L that is parallel to the mirror plane. More descriptive names will be assigned to A and B for this case. A becomes mpar and B becomes mperp.

The reflection of the line L in the mirror M is written as follows.

L' = mpar-1 L mpar
where L' is the reflected line and mpar-1 mpar = +e
The details are best seen with a couple of examples.
Example 4: Reflect line segment ( 3 e1 + 4 e3) in the mirror described by the e12 plane (12-plane).
The line segment is in the 13-plane while the mirror is the 12-plane. This makes the first term the portion of the line that runs parallel to the mirror. Therefore we choose mpar = e1 and mpar-1 = e1 follows. (Recall that the basis line segments have positive squares.)

Our reflected line is then
L' = mpar-1 L mpar = e1 (3 e1 + 4 e3) e1 = 3 e1 - 4 e3.
Note how the part of the line perpendicular to the mirror changed signs.

Example 5: Reflect line segment ( 3 e1 - 2 e2 + 4 e3) in the mirror described by e13 - e12.
This example works out in a similar way to the previous example. The difference is that one must first figure out what to use for mpar. The mirror plane is equal parts of each of its basis planes, so the line segment will be separated in a similar way.

L = ( 3 e1 - 2 e2 + 4 e3) = ( 2 e3 - 2 e2) + ( 3 e1 + 2 e3 )

The first term is parallel to the mirror, so we will use
mpar= 1/squareroot(2) (e3 - e2) = mpar-1.

Our reflected line becomes
L' = 1/squareroot(2) (e3 - e2) ( 3 e1 - 2 e2 + 4 e3) 1/squareroot(2) (e3 - e2)
= 1/2 (e3 - e2) ( 3 e1 - 2 e2 + 4 e3) (e3 - e2)
= 1/2 (e3 - e2) [2 ( e3 - e2) + ( 3 e1 + 2 e3 )] (e3 - e2)
= ( e3 - e2)3 + 1/2 (e3 - e2) ( 3 e1 + 2 e3 ) (e3 - e2)
= 2( e3 - e2) + 1/2 ( 3 e31 - 3 e21 + 2 e33 - 2 e23 ) (e3 - e2)
= ( 2 e3 -2 e2) + 1/2 ( 3 e313 - 3 e312 - 3 e213 + 3 e212 + 2 e333 - 2 e332 - 2 e233 + 2 e232)
= ( 2 e3 -2 e2) + 1/2 ( -3 e1 - 3 e123 + 3 e123 - 3 e1 + 2 e3 - 2 e2 - 2 e2 - 2 e3)
= ( 2 e3 -2 e2) + 1/2 ( -3 e1 - 3 e1 - 2 e2 - 2 e2)
= ( 2 e3 -2 e2) - ( 3 e1 +2 e2)
(Note that the perpendicular part of L changed signs.)
= 2 e3 - 3 e1.

Specification of the mirror used in reflections is good enough to tie the operation to our intuitive understanding of how reflections are supposed to work. However, only part of the mirror was needed to describe how line segments get reflected. The part of the mirror parallel to the part of the line that is parallel to the mirror is all that was needed. The other perpendicular direction in the mirror plane was left out. This makes the reflection operation a 'bilinear' operation involving multiplication by a line segment and its inverse from both sides of the thing being reflected.

Reflection has been demonstrated in terms of line segments as test objects. Let us now look at what our reflections do to objects with different ranks.

Reflection of a scalar (multiple of e) does not alter the scalar. This is true because e commutes with all basis line segments. Since mpar is a sum of basis line segments, we know that mpar-1 commutes through the scalar and cancels against mpar.

S' = mpar-1 S mpar
= S mpar-1 mpar
= S
Reflection of a line segment has already been demonstrated. Since mpar is a sum of generators, we know that mpar-1 commutes through the parallel part of the line segment and anticommutes through the perpendicular part. In this case, Lperp is perpendicular to mpar.
L' = mpar-1 L mpar
= mpar-1 ( Lpar + Lperp ) mpar
= ( Lparmpar-1 - Lperpmpar-1 ) mpar
= ( Lpar - Lperp)
Reflection of a plane segment can be described in terms of what reflection does to the perpendicular line segments that define the plane. Since mpar is a sum of basis line segments, we know that mpar-1 anticommutes through the part of a plane containing mpar. This part will be named Bin. We also know mpar-1 commutes through planes where it is perpendicular to both of the line segments that define the orientation of the plane. This part will be named Bout.
B' = mpar-1 B mpar
= mpar-1 ( Bout + Bin ) mpar
= ( Boutmpar-1 - Binmpar-1 ) mpar
= ( Bout - Bin)
Reflection of a volume (multiple of e123) does not alter the volume. This is true because e123 commutes with all basis line segments. Since mpar is a sum of basis line segments, we know that mpar-1 commutes through the volume segment and cancels against mpar.
V' = mpar-1 V mpar
= V mpar-1 mpar
= V
Reflections on an object made up of several parts with different geometric rank can be written in terms of what the reflection operation does to each of its parts.
Q' = mpar-1 Q mpar = mpar-1 (QS + QL + QB + QV) mpar
= mpar-1 QS mpar + mpar-1QL mpar + mpar-1QB mpar + mpar-1 QV mpar
----Rotations----
Toss a ball into the air or roll it on the ground and it will usually rotate. Take a corner at high speed in your car on a slick road and you may start an unintended rotation. While many people describe these basic motions in terms of an axis of rotation, it is also acceptable to describe them in terms of the equators of some imaginary sphere where the original axis connects the sphere's poles. Rotational motion is a fundamental subject within Kinematics, so it is important that the representation of rotation operators within geometric algebras be done well.

While not everyone is aware of it, it is also possible to describe rotations as two sequential reflections. Our description of rotations will start with reflections and connect later to the equators and axes that are more commonly used.

To start off, we shall limit the test object to a line segment as we did with the discussion of reflections. This is done because most people have an intuitional understanding for how lines rotate in a three dimensional space. Also, rather than find the appropriate parallel portion of a mirror, we shall simply specify the unit line segment used as the reflection operator in each case.

To see that sequential reflections produce something equivalent to a rotation, an example will be shown.

Example 6: Reflect line segment ( e1 - e2 + 4 e3) across the line described by e1 and then again across the line described by e2.
L' = e2 e1 ( e1 - e2 + 4 e3) e1 e2
= ( e21112 - e21212 + 4 e21312)
= ( -e1 + e2 + 4 e3)
In this example, the line swung around 180 degrees in the 12-plane or around the 3-axis. The portion of the line pointing along e3 was unaltered. This is similar to a rotation and can be shown to work for a more general case involving other reflection lines.

In the general case, the two unit line segments used for reflection could be anything. If both reflection line segments are written in a representation free format as M and N, we can take advantage of example three from section one and write the result of their multiplication.

Example 7: Reflect line segment L across the line described by M and then again across the line described by N.
L' = N (M L M) N
= (N M) L (M N)
= [cos(θ) · e + sin(θ) · unit plane with N and then M] L [cos(θ) · e + sin(θ) · unit plane with M and then N]

Let B be the unit plane containing M and then N and we get the following.

= [cos(θ) · e - sin(θ) · B] L [cos(θ) · e + sin(θ) · B]

The end of example 7 shows a rotation operator in a general form. It is a sum of a scalar and a plane segment. This assignment works because the term to the left of L is the inverse of the term to the right.
R = [cos(θ) · e + sin(θ) · B] and
R-1 = [cos(θ) · e - sin(θ) · B]

So L' = R-1 L R

----Technical Note----
Some people prefer to use θ/2 in their definition for R because the net effect of the rotation operation is to rotate L through double the angle between the two reflection line segments as was shown in example six. Some people also prefer to write R in terms of an exponential function as follows.
R = exp(θ · B) = e θ · B = [cos(θ) · e + sin(θ) · B]
Both ideas are generally a good idea for formal usage but they aren't strictly needed here. Use the Taylor series expansion for the exponential function if you find this last equation hard to believe.

Another thing to note is that anyone with experience handling quaternions is probably noting that this result should be obvious. The rotation operator as we have written it is a sum of objects that are equivalent to quaternions.

With R defined now in terms of the two reflection line segments, it is important to bring our discussion back to the equators and axes most people are prepared to use when thinking about rotations. This is relatively easy to do once one sees that the plane segment B buried within R is the equatorial plane of the rotation. If B is e12, then the rotation occurs by swinging the 12-plane around and angle of twice θ. One could also look at this as a rotation around the 3-axis using an angle of twice θ. Both ideas lead to the same result. It is the unit plane segment within R that links us back to our intuitive approach to rotations. Once this link is made, one never needs to think of rotations as double reflections again since one can simply write out R the next time a rotation is needed.

----And now reversion----
Reversion is the last operation that will be mentioned at the introductory level. It is actually quite important for later, more advanced discussions, but it won't appear that way here. As long as a student knows what it is and how to do it, that will be enough for now.

Reversion is the operation that helps correct our tendency to write mathematical equations with the left-right reading bias present in many spoken languages. The best way to describe reversion, though, is to show what it does in terms of a couple rules and then demonstrate with a couple of examples.

1. Reversion changes the multiplication order of all basis line segments by simply writing them in the opposite order. AB becomes BA if A and B are line segments.
2. Had we been using complex numbers as our numbers instead of real numbers, reversion would turn them into their complex conjugates. We aren't using complex numbers in R(3,0), though, so this rule doesn't come into play.
----Technical Note----
The actual rules that define reversion vary a little from one algebra to another. Whether the generators have positive or negative squares does matter. The actual technique requires that one find the main automorphism of the algebra. The rules listed above work for R(3,0).
Example 8: Apply reversion to M = (3e + 7e2 - 6e13 + e123)
~M = rule1(M)
= 3e + 7e2 - 6e31 + e321
= 3e + 7e2 + 6e13 - e123
Note that terms with rank two or three are altered by reversion. Terms with rank zero or one are not altered.
Example 9: Apply reversion to the product MN = (3e + 7e2) (6e13 + e123)
Solution 1: The first thing to do is multiply the two objects and then apply the lesson we learned in the last example.

MN = (3e + 7e2) (6e13 + e123)
= (18e13 + 42e213 + 3e123 + 7e2123)
= (11e13 - 39e123)

So reversion(MN) = (-11e13 + 39e123)

Solution 2: The other way to try this is to apply reversion before multiplying the terms.

reversion(MN) = reversion(N) reversion(M) = (-6e13 - e123) (3e + 7e2)
= (-18e13 - 3e123 - 42e132 - 7e1232)
= (-11e13 + 39e123)

Note that the reversion operation applied to several objects can be 'distributed' if their product order is reversed. This rule works in general.
One of the more important uses for the reversion operation is for finding the 'length' or 'norm' of an object in the algebra. Other powerful uses involve tricks for finding continuity equations and solving for objects in equations where inverses are hard to find. Only the norm will be discussed here, though.

Imagine starting with a line segment (3e1 + 4e2). A useful question to ask is 'How long is it?' One way to do this is to pluck the coefficients out and use the Pythagoras formula for distances. The other way is to simply multiply the object by itself and examine the result. The second method works fine until the object in question is multi-ranked. The first method is a manual recipe and more automated process for finding the norm is useful. Enter the reversion operation and another example.

Example 10: Multiply the following objects on the left with their reversions. (3e1 + 4e1) and (3e1 + 4e12)
For the first object we have
~M M = (3e1 + 4e1)(3e1 + 4e1)
= (9e+ 16e) + (12e12 + 12e21)
= 25e
This is the square of the length as it would typically be defined.

For the second object we have
~N N = (3e1 - 4e12)(3e1 + 4e12)
= (9e - 16e1212) + (12e112 - 12e121)
= (9e + 16e) + (12e2 + 12e2)
= 25e + 24e2
The scalar part of this result is the same as the scalar part of the first result. It is the scalar part of the product that contains the information about the norm.

In the last example, we would have returned a completely different result for the length of the mixed rank object if we had just squared it. The result would have been (-7e) which would make for a very strange square of the length. Our recipe of multiplying on the left by the object after a reversion operation has been applied delivers the squared length we would expect, but it is buried in the scalar part of the result. Ignore the non-scalar parts and we have a better recipe for finding the norm of any object in the algebra.

Summary

In this section, the basic operations for reflection, rotation and reversion were described and demonstrated with examples. Reflections were shown as two sided multiplications involving a line segment and its inverse. Rotations were shown to be sequential reflections or as two sided products involving the sum of a scalar and plane segment along with the inverse of the sum. Finally, reversion was demonstrated as a rule list that enabled a recipe for finding the norm of any object in the algebra.

With a bit of experience with these three operations, a student will have enough of the tools they need to begin using geometric algebras to represent physical objects. Properties and property currents form the foundations of physical theories, so experience with geometric objects and the tools used to manipulate them are necessary before traveling further into the physics we can express using geometric algebras.

----Problems for Section 2----

6: Reflect the line segment (2e1 - e2 + 3e3 ) with the mirror described by ( e12 + e13 + e23 )

7: Rotate the line segment (2e1 - e2 - 3e3 ) around the 1-axis a total of 60 degrees.

8: Rotate the line segment (2e1 - e2 ) a total of 120 degrees around an axis defined by e1 + e3.

9: Find the norm of (5e12 + 12 e23).

10: Find the norm of 1/2(e + e3).

 Poll
Show me more geometric algebra material relating to
 its history 0% its use in Physics 34% its use in Robotics 22% its place in pure Mathematics 37% nothing. I've had enough for now. 5%

 Votes: 35 Results | Other Polls

 Display: Threaded Minimal Nested Flat Flat Unthreaded Sort: Unrated, then Highest Highest Rated First Lowest Rated First Ignore Ratings Newest First Oldest First
 Introduction to Geometric Algebra (part two) | 26 comments (21 topical, 5 editorial, 1 hidden)
 +1 FP (2.40 / 5) (#5) by BinaryTree on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 01:33:22 AM EST

 You rock. That is all.
 I use algebra all the time..... (5.00 / 1) (#7) by mattygfunk on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 09:14:22 AM EST

 ... but people on kuro5hin call it spelling mistakes. ;) ---- Interested in inventions?
 R(3,0) (5.00 / 1) (#8) by Theovon on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 10:36:47 AM EST

 I've tried google searches and have gotten nowhere.  What does "R(3,0)" mean?  I have a reasonably easy time understanding mathematics when undefined terms are not used, but these sorts of things get in my way.  It's like when I'm reading a technical paper, and they start using a symbol they haven't defined, and I can't find a definition for it anywhere.  It irritates me to no end. Now, my guess is that it has something to do with 3-space.  I don't know what the R means, but I'm guessing that the 3 is the number of real degrees of freedom, and the 0 is the number of imaginary degrees of freedom.   What does "R" mean?  Can you have the first number be non-integer?  When you include imaginary degrees of freedom, it that just like a bunch of orthogonal argand planes?  How is that different from doubling the degrees of freedom? Thanks.
 Guesses... (none / 0) (#10) by BlaisePascal on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 11:09:09 AM EST

 You are right about the numbers being real and imaginariy degrees of freedom.  I can't imagine R(3/2,4/5), and suspect that few people (well, besides perhaps John Conway or the like) could. My guess is that R stands for Real, and refers to the scalar field used as magnitudes for the bases.  I would expect that C(3,0) would allow for values like e + ie1 - (2+3i)e23, etc.  I suspect that something like Zp(a,b) (i.e., the geometric algebra over a finite modular field with a read generators and b imaginary generators) might have interesting properties, but thinking about it really bends my brain. [ Parent ]
 Complex are not necessary (none / 0) (#11) by kallisti on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 01:00:56 PM EST

 The complex numbers naturally show up when building a geometric algebra (as do the quaternions). As such, building a GA using a complex number base is the same thing as building a larger dimensioned one using only the reals. For this reason, using complex as a base adds needless complication and gains you nothing. [ Parent ]
 tricky (none / 0) (#17) by adiffer on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 03:10:06 AM EST

 I'm inclined to think this is trickier than it sounds.  It is true that the complex algebra easily shows up, but the geometric magnitude that fills in for 'i' isn't quite the same as the meaning we typically use for 'i'.  Think about our typical uses for complex numbers and complex analysis and ask whether we meant for the 'i' to have geometric meaning beyond U(1).  If we assign e123 as 'i' in our Euclidean space, we are making a strong statement about possible solutions for problems.  Our derivatives and integrals can change meanings depending on this extra geometric information. I have seen work showing how to build larger algebras from 'products' of smaller ones.  Pairing up with R(0,1) tends to increase the number of generators of the resulting space by one in interestingly predictable ways.  It is cool stuff. -Dream Big. --Grow Up.[ Parent ]
 you are right (none / 0) (#16) by adiffer on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 03:03:05 AM EST

 Not everyone uses the notation I am using here, though, so I should have been more specific.  I've typically worked with C(3,1) for quantum related research, but I've never considered what a fractional generator would be.  8) -Dream Big. --Grow Up.[ Parent ]
 sines and cosines... (none / 0) (#9) by BlaisePascal on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 11:02:01 AM EST

 In both this and the previous section, you introduced in examples sines and cosines for finding perpendicular and parallel segments.  I wonder if there is a different way. For instance, with vectors, you can define \$A dot B = |A||B|cos theta\$, or you can define \$A dot B = sum A_iB_i\$.  Both definitions give the same result, but the latter doesn't use cosines.  I tend to think of the second definition as "purer", because it only uses concepts from the domain of the algebra. Is there a similar replacement for sines and cosines in Geometric Algebra?
 sines and cosines (none / 0) (#12) by TeknoHog on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 08:43:50 AM EST

 Dot product is in fact defined with the cosine. It is completely independent of the coordinate system, and describes a relation between the vectors themselves (not their components). The \$A_i B_i\$ (implicit sum:) definition is called the inner product of A and B, and it happens to be equal to dot product in Euclidean coordinates only. It should also be noted that trigonometry is a system which connects geometry and algebra to some extent. Therefore sines and cosines are essential elements of geometric algebra. [ Parent ]
 blurring product defintions (none / 0) (#18) by adiffer on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 03:20:43 AM EST

 Be careful here.  I haven't defined the 'dot' product yet for a very specific reason.  We have scalar multiplication, addition, and multiplication as they are defined in section one. In section three, I will define the inner and outer products in some detail.  You've seen the hint with example three and the alternate ways of writing the rotation operator.   I will also show why I want to avoid your second definition for the inner product as long as possible.  The definition works, though, and may  make for more computational efficiency over the first definition.  Think about it this way and it may help.  Any product that requires a full reference frame for use in representing the objects demands more than our geometric definitions for the products can demand. -Dream Big. --Grow Up.[ Parent ]
 Outer and inner products... (none / 0) (#22) by BlaisePascal on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 07:10:15 AM EST

 OK then, how about: a.b = (ab+ba)/2 a^b = (ab-ba)/2 ? BTW, is it reasonable to say, in general, that a is parallel to b if a^b = 0, and perpendicular to b if a.b = 0? Does this procedure for finding parallel and perpendicular projections of a onto vector b work? let b' = b/|b| (so b' is of unit size) let a' = -b'ab' then a_par = (a+a')/2 a_per = (a-a')/2 [ Parent ]
 for vectors (none / 0) (#23) by adiffer on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 01:53:16 PM EST

 Your idea works OK for rank one objects (vectors), but it comes apart for other ranks and mixed rank situations.  What you have described are the symmetric and antisymmetric products.  For the dot and wedge products we tend to keep the dot as the rank lowering and the wedge as rank raising.  Try your definitions for 'a' being a vector and 'b' being a bivector (rank 2) and you will see what I mean. -Dream Big. --Grow Up.[ Parent ]
 Reflection on a curved surface (none / 0) (#13) by Elkor on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:24:19 PM EST

 Admittedly this isn't so much an application of Algebraic Geometry as it is physical geometry, but I either misunderstand what you are saying, or need to correct something.... By scale, I am presuming you mean magnitude. If so, a curved mirror does not change the scale of a vector. Rather, since the curved mirror is a non-planar surface (by definition) the reflection of the Rays on the surface is non-uniform (i.e. a series of evenly spaced parallel incident rays of Magnitude M are not parallel after they are reflected because they hit a part of the surface with a different normal, but they still have Magnitude M) It is by manipulation of these normals that allow focusing and dispersion to occur (ex: changing the focus of a flashlight focuses or disperses the beam). The change in scale of a ray (or vector) is associated with the reflectivity index (Ir) (a value from 0 to 1 by which the magnitude of the incident vector is multiplied to determine the magnitude of the reflected vector) of the material the mirror is made of. IE, above mentioned reflected rays would all have magnitude M*Ir when they left (disregarding energy loss associated with traveling through air). Regards, Elkor "I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself." -Margo Eve
 great article (none / 0) (#14) by anon0865 on Fri Sep 13, 2002 at 11:50:13 AM EST

 Please don't be discouraged by the few number of replies- I suspect that many readers like myself need time to slowly digest the material. Keep'em coming :)
 Reflections (none / 0) (#15) by kallisti on Fri Sep 13, 2002 at 12:48:48 PM EST

 Ok, I've looked at it dozens of times and I still don't know how you break into perpendicular and parallel. For one bivector, you just take the part in that plane (Ex4), for two bivectors, you took the part that they have in common, (for e13 and e23, you took e2 and e3). I have no idea how to generalize that to three bivectors, are you just working from intuition or is there some formula I haven't gotten? BTW, I really appreciate this column, I've been trying to get a handle on this stuff from various web sites and online books, but haven't got very far. One reason is that everyone using GA seems to be a physicist and immediately after the basics launches into quantum and relativistic stuff that I don't have the background to understand. I see that you are also a physicist and ask that you please don't do that, at least not right away. I am a graphics programmer and am interested in whether GA could be useful for that domain, a replacement for the whole vector/quat/matrix method currently ubiqitous. I've also done some 4D stuff and am interested in the fact that GA works in higher dimensions, while quats and vector cross only work in 3D.
 recipes (none / 0) (#19) by adiffer on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 03:27:58 AM EST

 I haven't presented a general recipe for getting what.  That's because the best recipes I know require the inner and outer products to make it clearer.  It is possible to do it without them, and you are welcome to take a crack at it.  I think it will become clearer, though, with section three. Your struggle to find a general recipe for reflection is good for you too.  It shows you are paying attention and working the work.  Try imagining the mirror plane and reflection vector in your mind and then slowly rotating the plane a bit.  What does a minor alteration in a plane do to the correct parrallel vector?  The hint is that it must also be slowly rotated.  8) -Dream Big. --Grow Up.[ Parent ]
 replacements (none / 0) (#20) by adiffer on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 03:43:15 AM EST

 I wanted to answer this subject separately. There are some interesting things a graphics programmer should be able to do with geometric algebras.  I built a GPL'd java package to support geometric algebras called clados.  It's at sourceforge if you are interested.  I wanted it for a physical simulation application involving solar sails in flight.  I chose geometric algebras because I new them and could write in an object oriented language without type casting when it came time to implement methods handling the math behind physical objects.  Polar and axial vectors aren't the same thing, after all, even if they look the same from the outside and in the standard library implementations. My initial work suggests that the matric representation may be computationally faster, but I could be wrong.  Even if it is, it might still be possible that surface manipluation might be made more efficient if the number of matricies that need to be handled is reduced.  I'm not hopeful on the efficiency front and would need a real algorithm person to be the judge.  I'm just a physicist.  8) I will start doing physics stuff in a bit, but I'll probably do Newtonian style mechanics first.  The step up to relativistic mechanics isn't as hard as it sounds, but I'll motivate the material when I get there.  The higher dimensional algebras are kind of neat when properly introduced. -Dream Big. --Grow Up.[ Parent ]
 Higher dimernsional algebras (none / 0) (#21) by tzigane on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 03:39:15 PM EST

 The higher dimensional algebras are kind of neat when properly introduced. This is true! Unfortunately most who write or lecture about them seem to take pride in making the subject as weird and obscure as possible. I'll be interested to see how you present it. Knit on with confidence and hope through all crises. E. Zimmermann[ Parent ]
 Solutions (none / 0) (#24) by adiffer on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 06:40:37 PM EST

 6: Reflect the line segment (2e1 - e2 + 3e3 ) with the mirror described by ( e12 + e13 + e23 ) Hint: Find a line segment perpendicular to the mirror. It helps split the mirror into its parts, at least in my opinion. 7: Rotate the line segment (2e1 - e2 - 3e3 ) around the 1-axis a total of 60 degrees. A rotation around the 1-axis is a rotation in the 23-plane. So B in our rotation operation will be e23. R = cos (30) e + sin(30) e23 and R-1 = cos (30) e - sin(30) e23 Then L' = R-1 L R = (cos (30) e - sin(30) e23) (2e1 - e2 - 3e3 ) (cos (30) e + sin(30) = [(cos (30) e - sin(30) e23) 2e1 (cos (30) e + sin(30) e23)] - [(cos (30) e - sin(30) e23)e2(cos (30) e + sin(30) e23)] - [(cos (30) e - sin(30) e23) 3e3 (cos (30) e + sin(30) e23)] = [ 2e1(cos (30) e - sin(30) e23) (cos (30) e + sin(30) e23)] - [e2(cos (30) e + sin(30) e23)(cos (30) e + sin(30) e23)] - [ 3e3(cos (30) e + sin(30) e23) (cos (30) e + sin(30) e23)] = 2e1(cos2 (30) e - sin2(30) e2323) - (e2 + 3e3) (cos2(30) e + sin2(30) e2323 + 2cos(30)sin(30)e23) = 2e1(cos2 (30) e + sin2(30) e) - (e2 + 3e3) (cos2(30) e - sin2(30) e + sin(60)e23) = 2e1 - (e2 + 3e3) ((cos2(30) - sin2(30)) e + sin(60)e23) = 2e1 - (e2 + 3e3) (cos(60) e + sin(60)e23) = 2e1 - (cos(60)e2 + 3cos(60)e3+sin(60)e223 + 3sin(60)e323) = 2e1 - (cos(60)e2 +sin(60)e3) - 3(cos(60)e3 - sin(60)e2) 8: Rotate the line segment (2e1 - e2 ) a total of 120 degrees around an axis defined by e1 + e3. Hint: Figure out which plane segment gets used as B and then find the part of the line segment that is in that plane. 9: Find the norm of (5e12 + 12 e23). ~(5e12 + 12 e23) (5e12 + 12 e23) = (-5e12 - 12 e23) (5e12 + 12 e23) = -25e1212 - 60 e2312 -60e1223 - 144 e2323 = 25e + 60 e13 -60e13 + 144 e = 169e So the norm is 13. 10: Find the norm of 1/2(e + e3). ~1/2(e + e3) 1/2(e + e3) =1/2(e + e3) 1/2(e + e3) =1/4(e + e3 + e3 + e33 ) =1/4(2e +2 e3 ) =1/2(e + e3 ) The coefficient of the scalar part is the square of the norm, so the norm is the square root of 0.5. -Dream Big. --Grow Up.
 Regarding robotics (none / 0) (#25) by mambru on Wed Feb 12, 2003 at 12:59:10 PM EST

 It would be nice to have at least links to some papers, just in case you forget to post a story about it :-) I've googled a bit but couldn't find anything explicit enough. Btw, is this stuff really useful in robotics? At the programming/numeric/operational level or at the conceptual one?
 robotics (none / 0) (#26) by adiffer on Fri Feb 14, 2003 at 05:33:47 PM EST

 I won't forget, but I probably won't do it either.  My knowledge in this area is pretty weak.  I know there are some people who think this stuff is important and they work in the field, so I tend to trust them and keep plodding on with my offered improvments. I almost made it to a conference last year in Cookeville that had a section on the subject.  I planned to attend and shore up my weakness in this area.  Reality intervened and I didn't get to go. Here is a list of conferences I think might be useful to you.  They are all in the past now, so look out for preceedings and such. http://blitz.ks.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~chp/conf/ --BE The Alien![ Parent ]
 Introduction to Geometric Algebra (part two) | 26 comments (21 topical, 5 editorial, 1 hidden)
 Display: Threaded Minimal Nested Flat Flat Unthreaded Sort: Unrated, then Highest Highest Rated First Lowest Rated First Ignore Ratings Newest First Oldest First