Rotation of axes by 45 degrees
I was reading a book in which it is mentioned that:
Rotate coordinate axes by $45$ degrees so that a point $(x,y)$ becomes $(x+y,y-x)$ .
Here is image 1
Here is image 2
I can't understand how the new coordinates became $(x+y,y-x)$ .
If I apply the formula for rotation of axes I'll get $sqrt{2}$ $(x-y, x+y) $.
geometry rotations
|
show 1 more comment
I was reading a book in which it is mentioned that:
Rotate coordinate axes by $45$ degrees so that a point $(x,y)$ becomes $(x+y,y-x)$ .
Here is image 1
Here is image 2
I can't understand how the new coordinates became $(x+y,y-x)$ .
If I apply the formula for rotation of axes I'll get $sqrt{2}$ $(x-y, x+y) $.
geometry rotations
I agree with you. The distance $BC$ before the rotation is $sqrt {13}$ while it is $sqrt {26}$ afterwards. I think they stretch it back afterwards .
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
Yes, your are right. But, please explain the context.
– Martín Vacas Vignolo
8 hours ago
@MohammadZuhairKhan I've uploaded the whole section. Can you look something now?
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
3
@MartínVacasVignolo the new coordinates after rotation of the cordinates at an angle f for a point (x,y){x = Xcos(f) - Ysin(f)}{y = Xcos(f) + Ysin(f)}
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
youtube.com/watch?v=BPgq2AudoEo if you want more details.
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I was reading a book in which it is mentioned that:
Rotate coordinate axes by $45$ degrees so that a point $(x,y)$ becomes $(x+y,y-x)$ .
Here is image 1
Here is image 2
I can't understand how the new coordinates became $(x+y,y-x)$ .
If I apply the formula for rotation of axes I'll get $sqrt{2}$ $(x-y, x+y) $.
geometry rotations
I was reading a book in which it is mentioned that:
Rotate coordinate axes by $45$ degrees so that a point $(x,y)$ becomes $(x+y,y-x)$ .
Here is image 1
Here is image 2
I can't understand how the new coordinates became $(x+y,y-x)$ .
If I apply the formula for rotation of axes I'll get $sqrt{2}$ $(x-y, x+y) $.
geometry rotations
geometry rotations
edited 5 hours ago
dmtri
1,4141521
1,4141521
asked 8 hours ago
Ayaz S Imran
235
235
I agree with you. The distance $BC$ before the rotation is $sqrt {13}$ while it is $sqrt {26}$ afterwards. I think they stretch it back afterwards .
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
Yes, your are right. But, please explain the context.
– Martín Vacas Vignolo
8 hours ago
@MohammadZuhairKhan I've uploaded the whole section. Can you look something now?
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
3
@MartínVacasVignolo the new coordinates after rotation of the cordinates at an angle f for a point (x,y){x = Xcos(f) - Ysin(f)}{y = Xcos(f) + Ysin(f)}
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
youtube.com/watch?v=BPgq2AudoEo if you want more details.
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I agree with you. The distance $BC$ before the rotation is $sqrt {13}$ while it is $sqrt {26}$ afterwards. I think they stretch it back afterwards .
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
Yes, your are right. But, please explain the context.
– Martín Vacas Vignolo
8 hours ago
@MohammadZuhairKhan I've uploaded the whole section. Can you look something now?
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
3
@MartínVacasVignolo the new coordinates after rotation of the cordinates at an angle f for a point (x,y){x = Xcos(f) - Ysin(f)}{y = Xcos(f) + Ysin(f)}
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
youtube.com/watch?v=BPgq2AudoEo if you want more details.
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
I agree with you. The distance $BC$ before the rotation is $sqrt {13}$ while it is $sqrt {26}$ afterwards. I think they stretch it back afterwards .
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
I agree with you. The distance $BC$ before the rotation is $sqrt {13}$ while it is $sqrt {26}$ afterwards. I think they stretch it back afterwards .
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
Yes, your are right. But, please explain the context.
– Martín Vacas Vignolo
8 hours ago
Yes, your are right. But, please explain the context.
– Martín Vacas Vignolo
8 hours ago
@MohammadZuhairKhan I've uploaded the whole section. Can you look something now?
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
@MohammadZuhairKhan I've uploaded the whole section. Can you look something now?
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
3
3
@MartínVacasVignolo the new coordinates after rotation of the cordinates at an angle f for a point (x,y){x = Xcos(f) - Ysin(f)}{y = Xcos(f) + Ysin(f)}
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
@MartínVacasVignolo the new coordinates after rotation of the cordinates at an angle f for a point (x,y){x = Xcos(f) - Ysin(f)}{y = Xcos(f) + Ysin(f)}
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
youtube.com/watch?v=BPgq2AudoEo if you want more details.
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
youtube.com/watch?v=BPgq2AudoEo if you want more details.
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
As noted, that transformation isn't an isometry; it's a $45^circ$ rotation composed with a dilation by $sqrt{2}$.
But then, looking at the pictures, we're not looking at Euclidean geometry - we're instead looking at the distances derived from the 1-norm $|(x,y)|_1=|x|+|y|$ and the $infty$-norm $|(x,y)|=max(|x|,|y|)$. From that perspective, we're just fine leaving that scale factor in so the transformation has rational coefficients. The formula for $T^{-1}$ will have factors of $frac12$, and that's just not a big deal.
Let $T(x,y)=(x+y,y-x)$. The linked pictures say that $|T(v)|_{infty}=|v|_1$. We also get $|T(v)|_1=2|v|_{infty}$. Taking two steps, $T^2(x,y)=(2y,-2x)$, which doubles both norms. What this is saying is that the geometry we get from the $1$-norm and the geometry we get from the $infty$-norm are isomorphic - because this transformation $T$ transforms one distance into the other. Using the irrational version that's an isometry in the Euclidean metric would only make things worse by introducing a factor of $sqrt{2}$ to the distances we're looking at. Pass.
add a comment |
You are rotating the coordinate axes, not the points. Let $(x,y)$ be a point in the plane. Then $(x,y)=x(1,0)+y(0,1)$. A rotation of the coordinates by $45^{circ}$ takes $(1,0)$ to $(frac{1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})$ and $(0,1)$ to $(frac{-1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})$.
To find the new coordinates $(x',y')$ we must solve $$x'(frac{1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})+y'(frac{-1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})=(x,y)$$
Grouping terms on the left of the equation and equating coordinates gives $$x'-y'=sqrt{2}x$$ $$x'+y'=sqrt{2}y$$
The $sqrt{2}$ corresponds to the length of the diagonal of a unit square which is $2$ in taxicab geometry. Replacing $sqrt{2}$ with $2$ in out system of equations gives us $$x'-y'=2x$$ $$x'+y'=2y$$
We can solve this system for $x'$ and $y'$ to obtain $$x'=x+y$$ $$y'=y-x$$.
add a comment |
I'd think that the author was more concerned to the underlayed square lattice grid, as being displayed in your linked pictures. That is, integer coordinates ought be transformed into integer coordinates only, and not into something irrational, involving a sqrt(2) factor.
--- rk
add a comment |
In this text, "rotate" is used in a loose sense, as it is actually combined with a scaling by $sqrt2$, to keep integer coordinates.
To rotate is the verb that corresponds to rotation. There is no verb for "similarity transformation".
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3057471%2frotation-of-axes-by-45-degrees%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As noted, that transformation isn't an isometry; it's a $45^circ$ rotation composed with a dilation by $sqrt{2}$.
But then, looking at the pictures, we're not looking at Euclidean geometry - we're instead looking at the distances derived from the 1-norm $|(x,y)|_1=|x|+|y|$ and the $infty$-norm $|(x,y)|=max(|x|,|y|)$. From that perspective, we're just fine leaving that scale factor in so the transformation has rational coefficients. The formula for $T^{-1}$ will have factors of $frac12$, and that's just not a big deal.
Let $T(x,y)=(x+y,y-x)$. The linked pictures say that $|T(v)|_{infty}=|v|_1$. We also get $|T(v)|_1=2|v|_{infty}$. Taking two steps, $T^2(x,y)=(2y,-2x)$, which doubles both norms. What this is saying is that the geometry we get from the $1$-norm and the geometry we get from the $infty$-norm are isomorphic - because this transformation $T$ transforms one distance into the other. Using the irrational version that's an isometry in the Euclidean metric would only make things worse by introducing a factor of $sqrt{2}$ to the distances we're looking at. Pass.
add a comment |
As noted, that transformation isn't an isometry; it's a $45^circ$ rotation composed with a dilation by $sqrt{2}$.
But then, looking at the pictures, we're not looking at Euclidean geometry - we're instead looking at the distances derived from the 1-norm $|(x,y)|_1=|x|+|y|$ and the $infty$-norm $|(x,y)|=max(|x|,|y|)$. From that perspective, we're just fine leaving that scale factor in so the transformation has rational coefficients. The formula for $T^{-1}$ will have factors of $frac12$, and that's just not a big deal.
Let $T(x,y)=(x+y,y-x)$. The linked pictures say that $|T(v)|_{infty}=|v|_1$. We also get $|T(v)|_1=2|v|_{infty}$. Taking two steps, $T^2(x,y)=(2y,-2x)$, which doubles both norms. What this is saying is that the geometry we get from the $1$-norm and the geometry we get from the $infty$-norm are isomorphic - because this transformation $T$ transforms one distance into the other. Using the irrational version that's an isometry in the Euclidean metric would only make things worse by introducing a factor of $sqrt{2}$ to the distances we're looking at. Pass.
add a comment |
As noted, that transformation isn't an isometry; it's a $45^circ$ rotation composed with a dilation by $sqrt{2}$.
But then, looking at the pictures, we're not looking at Euclidean geometry - we're instead looking at the distances derived from the 1-norm $|(x,y)|_1=|x|+|y|$ and the $infty$-norm $|(x,y)|=max(|x|,|y|)$. From that perspective, we're just fine leaving that scale factor in so the transformation has rational coefficients. The formula for $T^{-1}$ will have factors of $frac12$, and that's just not a big deal.
Let $T(x,y)=(x+y,y-x)$. The linked pictures say that $|T(v)|_{infty}=|v|_1$. We also get $|T(v)|_1=2|v|_{infty}$. Taking two steps, $T^2(x,y)=(2y,-2x)$, which doubles both norms. What this is saying is that the geometry we get from the $1$-norm and the geometry we get from the $infty$-norm are isomorphic - because this transformation $T$ transforms one distance into the other. Using the irrational version that's an isometry in the Euclidean metric would only make things worse by introducing a factor of $sqrt{2}$ to the distances we're looking at. Pass.
As noted, that transformation isn't an isometry; it's a $45^circ$ rotation composed with a dilation by $sqrt{2}$.
But then, looking at the pictures, we're not looking at Euclidean geometry - we're instead looking at the distances derived from the 1-norm $|(x,y)|_1=|x|+|y|$ and the $infty$-norm $|(x,y)|=max(|x|,|y|)$. From that perspective, we're just fine leaving that scale factor in so the transformation has rational coefficients. The formula for $T^{-1}$ will have factors of $frac12$, and that's just not a big deal.
Let $T(x,y)=(x+y,y-x)$. The linked pictures say that $|T(v)|_{infty}=|v|_1$. We also get $|T(v)|_1=2|v|_{infty}$. Taking two steps, $T^2(x,y)=(2y,-2x)$, which doubles both norms. What this is saying is that the geometry we get from the $1$-norm and the geometry we get from the $infty$-norm are isomorphic - because this transformation $T$ transforms one distance into the other. Using the irrational version that's an isometry in the Euclidean metric would only make things worse by introducing a factor of $sqrt{2}$ to the distances we're looking at. Pass.
answered 6 hours ago
jmerry
1,53817
1,53817
add a comment |
add a comment |
You are rotating the coordinate axes, not the points. Let $(x,y)$ be a point in the plane. Then $(x,y)=x(1,0)+y(0,1)$. A rotation of the coordinates by $45^{circ}$ takes $(1,0)$ to $(frac{1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})$ and $(0,1)$ to $(frac{-1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})$.
To find the new coordinates $(x',y')$ we must solve $$x'(frac{1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})+y'(frac{-1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})=(x,y)$$
Grouping terms on the left of the equation and equating coordinates gives $$x'-y'=sqrt{2}x$$ $$x'+y'=sqrt{2}y$$
The $sqrt{2}$ corresponds to the length of the diagonal of a unit square which is $2$ in taxicab geometry. Replacing $sqrt{2}$ with $2$ in out system of equations gives us $$x'-y'=2x$$ $$x'+y'=2y$$
We can solve this system for $x'$ and $y'$ to obtain $$x'=x+y$$ $$y'=y-x$$.
add a comment |
You are rotating the coordinate axes, not the points. Let $(x,y)$ be a point in the plane. Then $(x,y)=x(1,0)+y(0,1)$. A rotation of the coordinates by $45^{circ}$ takes $(1,0)$ to $(frac{1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})$ and $(0,1)$ to $(frac{-1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})$.
To find the new coordinates $(x',y')$ we must solve $$x'(frac{1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})+y'(frac{-1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})=(x,y)$$
Grouping terms on the left of the equation and equating coordinates gives $$x'-y'=sqrt{2}x$$ $$x'+y'=sqrt{2}y$$
The $sqrt{2}$ corresponds to the length of the diagonal of a unit square which is $2$ in taxicab geometry. Replacing $sqrt{2}$ with $2$ in out system of equations gives us $$x'-y'=2x$$ $$x'+y'=2y$$
We can solve this system for $x'$ and $y'$ to obtain $$x'=x+y$$ $$y'=y-x$$.
add a comment |
You are rotating the coordinate axes, not the points. Let $(x,y)$ be a point in the plane. Then $(x,y)=x(1,0)+y(0,1)$. A rotation of the coordinates by $45^{circ}$ takes $(1,0)$ to $(frac{1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})$ and $(0,1)$ to $(frac{-1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})$.
To find the new coordinates $(x',y')$ we must solve $$x'(frac{1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})+y'(frac{-1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})=(x,y)$$
Grouping terms on the left of the equation and equating coordinates gives $$x'-y'=sqrt{2}x$$ $$x'+y'=sqrt{2}y$$
The $sqrt{2}$ corresponds to the length of the diagonal of a unit square which is $2$ in taxicab geometry. Replacing $sqrt{2}$ with $2$ in out system of equations gives us $$x'-y'=2x$$ $$x'+y'=2y$$
We can solve this system for $x'$ and $y'$ to obtain $$x'=x+y$$ $$y'=y-x$$.
You are rotating the coordinate axes, not the points. Let $(x,y)$ be a point in the plane. Then $(x,y)=x(1,0)+y(0,1)$. A rotation of the coordinates by $45^{circ}$ takes $(1,0)$ to $(frac{1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})$ and $(0,1)$ to $(frac{-1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})$.
To find the new coordinates $(x',y')$ we must solve $$x'(frac{1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})+y'(frac{-1}{sqrt{2}},frac{1}{sqrt{2}})=(x,y)$$
Grouping terms on the left of the equation and equating coordinates gives $$x'-y'=sqrt{2}x$$ $$x'+y'=sqrt{2}y$$
The $sqrt{2}$ corresponds to the length of the diagonal of a unit square which is $2$ in taxicab geometry. Replacing $sqrt{2}$ with $2$ in out system of equations gives us $$x'-y'=2x$$ $$x'+y'=2y$$
We can solve this system for $x'$ and $y'$ to obtain $$x'=x+y$$ $$y'=y-x$$.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
John Douma
5,30911319
5,30911319
add a comment |
add a comment |
I'd think that the author was more concerned to the underlayed square lattice grid, as being displayed in your linked pictures. That is, integer coordinates ought be transformed into integer coordinates only, and not into something irrational, involving a sqrt(2) factor.
--- rk
add a comment |
I'd think that the author was more concerned to the underlayed square lattice grid, as being displayed in your linked pictures. That is, integer coordinates ought be transformed into integer coordinates only, and not into something irrational, involving a sqrt(2) factor.
--- rk
add a comment |
I'd think that the author was more concerned to the underlayed square lattice grid, as being displayed in your linked pictures. That is, integer coordinates ought be transformed into integer coordinates only, and not into something irrational, involving a sqrt(2) factor.
--- rk
I'd think that the author was more concerned to the underlayed square lattice grid, as being displayed in your linked pictures. That is, integer coordinates ought be transformed into integer coordinates only, and not into something irrational, involving a sqrt(2) factor.
--- rk
answered 4 hours ago
Dr. Richard Klitzing
1,2966
1,2966
add a comment |
add a comment |
In this text, "rotate" is used in a loose sense, as it is actually combined with a scaling by $sqrt2$, to keep integer coordinates.
To rotate is the verb that corresponds to rotation. There is no verb for "similarity transformation".
add a comment |
In this text, "rotate" is used in a loose sense, as it is actually combined with a scaling by $sqrt2$, to keep integer coordinates.
To rotate is the verb that corresponds to rotation. There is no verb for "similarity transformation".
add a comment |
In this text, "rotate" is used in a loose sense, as it is actually combined with a scaling by $sqrt2$, to keep integer coordinates.
To rotate is the verb that corresponds to rotation. There is no verb for "similarity transformation".
In this text, "rotate" is used in a loose sense, as it is actually combined with a scaling by $sqrt2$, to keep integer coordinates.
To rotate is the verb that corresponds to rotation. There is no verb for "similarity transformation".
answered 3 hours ago
Yves Daoust
124k671221
124k671221
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3057471%2frotation-of-axes-by-45-degrees%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I agree with you. The distance $BC$ before the rotation is $sqrt {13}$ while it is $sqrt {26}$ afterwards. I think they stretch it back afterwards .
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago
Yes, your are right. But, please explain the context.
– Martín Vacas Vignolo
8 hours ago
@MohammadZuhairKhan I've uploaded the whole section. Can you look something now?
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
3
@MartínVacasVignolo the new coordinates after rotation of the cordinates at an angle f for a point (x,y){x = Xcos(f) - Ysin(f)}{y = Xcos(f) + Ysin(f)}
– Ayaz S Imran
8 hours ago
youtube.com/watch?v=BPgq2AudoEo if you want more details.
– Mohammad Zuhair Khan
8 hours ago