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

Comments

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) .

Geometric Multiplicity: eignvectors (2)

If eigenvectors of a matrix A are independent, it is a happy property. Because the matrix A can be diagonalized with a matrix S that column vectors are eigenvectors of A . For example, Why this is a happy property of A? Because I can find A's power easily. A^{10} is not a big deal. Because Λ is a diagonal matrix and power of a diagonal matrix is quite simple. A^{10} = SΛ^{10} S^{-1} Then, why if I want to compute power of A ? That is the same reason to find eigenvectors. Eigenvectors are a basis of a matrix. A matrix can be represented by a single scalar. I repeat this again. This is the happy point, a matrix becomes a scalar. What can be simpler than a scalar value. But, this is only possible when the matrix S's columns are independent. Because S^{-1} must be exist. Now I come back to my first question. Is the λ's multiplicity related with the number of eigenvectors? This time I found this has the name. Geometric multiplicity (GM): the number of in...

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...

Lx=d: SundayResearch

Search This Blog