Skip to main content

Why is the normal transformation a inverse transpose? (9)


Conclusion

I think it is not exactly correct that the normal transform is an inverse transpose. A normal vector is not a column vector, the transform is a left inverse as Equation 5 shows. The transpose comes from the implementation of the vector class. This should be a left inverse as a rigorous formulation. I don't say the references [2,3,6] are incorrect, but I prefer the references [4,5] since they distinguish these two kind of vectors.

However, the references [2,3,6] have an easier to understand explanations. Especially, [2,3,6] shows why normal transformation doesn't work with applying A intuitively. I like these explanations more. Here I would like to highlight the difference of a usual vector and a normal vector, they are a column vector or a row vector. By the way, contravariant vector means doesn't-change-vector, but, its representation can change. It seems I should explain the difference of these vectors are related with inner product. I would like to study more on this and hopefully I could explain this better one day.

I find it is interesting theme that what is not change by the coordinate transformation. For example, Euclidean distance doesn't change even we translate the coordinate system. That is related inner product. Another example is magnetic field of Maxwell equation. Einstein got a hint of relatively theory because of any coordinate transformation should not change the divergence (no magnetic monopole). I hope I can write something about this in the future.

References

[1] Yoshihiko Futamura, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_evaluation

[2] Matt Pharr, Greg Humphreys, ``Physically Based Rendering, Second Edition: From Theory To Implementation'', Morgan Kaufmann, 2010

[3] Philip Schneider, David H. Eberly, ``Geometric Tools for Computer Graphics'', Morgan Kaufmann, 2002

[4] Gilbert Strang, ``Introduction to Linear Algebra, 4th Edition'', Wellesley-Cambridge Press, 2009

[5] Koukichi Sugihara, ``Guraphics no suuri (Mathematical theory of graphics)'', Kyouritu shuppan, 1995 (杉原厚吉, グラフィックスの数理, 共立出版, 1995)

[6] Tomas Akenine-Moller, Eric Haines, Naty Hoffman, ``Real-Time Rendering (2nd Edition)'',
A K Peters/CRC Press, 2002

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why A^{T}A is invertible? (2) Linear Algebra

Why A^{T}A has the inverse Let me explain why A^{T}A has the inverse, if the columns of A are independent. First, if a matrix is n by n, and all the columns are independent, then this is a square full rank matrix. Therefore, there is the inverse. So, the problem is when A is a m by n, rectangle matrix.  Strang's explanation is based on null space. Null space and column space are the fundamental of the linear algebra. This explanation is simple and clear. However, when I was a University student, I did not recall the explanation of the null space in my linear algebra class. Maybe I was careless. I regret that... Explanation based on null space This explanation is based on Strang's book. Column space and null space are the main characters. Let's start with this explanation. Assume  x  where x is in the null space of A .  The matrices ( A^{T} A ) and A share the null space as the following: This means, if x is in the null space of A , x is also in the null spa
Post a Comment
Read more

Gauss's quote for positive, negative, and imaginary number

Recently I watched the following great videos about imaginary numbers by Welch Labs. https://youtu.be/T647CGsuOVU?list=PLiaHhY2iBX9g6KIvZ_703G3KJXapKkNaF I like this article about naming of math by Kalid Azad. https://betterexplained.com/articles/learning-tip-idea-name/ Both articles mentioned about Gauss, who suggested to use other names of positive, negative, and imaginary numbers. Gauss wrote these names are wrong and that is one of the reason people didn't get why negative times negative is positive, or, pure positive imaginary times pure positive imaginary is negative real number. I made a few videos about explaining why -1 * -1 = +1, too. Explanation: why -1 * -1 = +1 by pattern https://youtu.be/uD7JRdAzKP8 Explanation: why -1 * -1 = +1 by climbing a mountain https://youtu.be/uD7JRdAzKP8 But actually Gauss's insight is much powerful. The original is in the Gauß, Werke, Bd. 2, S. 178 . Hätte man +1, -1, √-1) nicht positiv, negative, imaginäre (oder gar um
Post a Comment
Read more

Why parallelogram area is |ad-bc|?

Here is my question. The area of parallelogram is the difference of these two rectangles (red rectangle - blue rectangle). This is not intuitive for me. If you also think it is not so intuitive, you might interested in my slides. I try to explain this for hight school students. Slides:  A bit intuitive (for me) explanation of area of parallelogram  (to my site, external link) . 
Post a Comment
Read more