Affine transformations and their inverse

hkcool
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Let F_{K}: \hat{K} \to K be defined as follows:
<br /> F_{K}(\hat{x},\hat{y}) = B_{K}\left[\begin{array}{c}<br /> \hat{x}\\<br /> \hat{y}\\<br /> \end{array}\right] + b_{K}<br />

i.e. F_{K} maps from (\hat{x},\hat{y}) to (x,y). In a more concrete sense, for this example take the following:
<br /> B_{K} = \left[\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 &amp; 0\\<br /> 1 &amp; 1\\<br /> \end{array}\right], \;\;\;b_{K} = \left[\begin{array}{c}<br /> 0\\<br /> 0\\<br /> \end{array}\right]<br />

Now suppose we have the function
<br /> \hat{\phi}(\hat{x},\hat{y}) = 1 - \hat{x} - \hat{y}<br />

and are given that
<br /> \phi(x,y) = \hat{\phi} \circ F_{K}^{-1}<br />

Computing F_{K}^{-1} is easy:
<br /> F_{K}^{-1} = B_{K}^{-1}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c}<br /> x\\<br /> y\\<br /> \end{array}\right] - b_{K}\right) = \left[\begin{array}{c}<br /> x\\<br /> y-x\\<br /> \end{array}\right]<br />

so a direct computation of \phi(x,y) gives:
<br /> \phi(x,y) = 1 - x - (y-x) = 1-y<br />

Consider the point (x,y) = (1/2,0). We have \phi(1/2,0) = 1.

However, if we compute via the composition of the inverse, we have F_{K}^{-1}(1/2,0) = [1/2,-1/2]^{T} and \hat{\phi} \circ F_{K}^{-1}(1/2,1/2) = 1 - 1/2 + 1/2 = 1.

edit: err, I figured out the error as I was typing this out and corrected it...maybe someone can delete this for me? Or I guess it can be left as an example or something

So what is the reason for this discrepancy and the error in the second way I computed it? This is a subroutine I have to implement in MATLAB and the only way I can do it is by computing the value of F_{K}^{-1} first and then composing it with \hat{\phi}, since I can't get an analytical expression for \phi in MATLAB...(I suppose I could but it would be much more tedious than it's worth).

I'm assuming I'm doing something extremely idiotic here, but can't for the life of me figure out what the error is...

If anyone is curious about the context: It's a finite element computation. Some info on the transformations: http://www.math.umn.edu/~sayas002/anIntro2FEM.pdf on page 28.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
hkcool said:
Let F_{K}: \hat{K} \to K be defined as follows:
<br /> F_{K}(\hat{x},\hat{y}) = B_{K}\left[\begin{array}{c}<br /> \hat{x}\\<br /> \hat{y}\\<br /> \end{array}\right] + b_{K}<br />

i.e. F_{K} maps from (\hat{x},\hat{y}) to (x,y). In a more concrete sense, for this example take the following:
<br /> B_{K} = \left[\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 &amp; 0\\<br /> 1 &amp; 1\\<br /> \end{array}\right], \;\;\;b_{K} = \left[\begin{array}{c}<br /> 0\\<br /> 0\\<br /> \end{array}\right]<br />

Now suppose we have the function
<br /> \hat{\phi}(\hat{x},\hat{y}) = 1 - \hat{x} - \hat{y}<br />

and are given that
<br /> \phi(x,y) = \hat{\phi} \circ F_{K}^{-1}<br />

Computing F_{K}^{-1} is easy:
<br /> F_{K}^{-1} = B_{K}^{-1}\left(\left[\begin{array}{c}<br /> x\\<br /> y\\<br /> \end{array}\right] - b_{K}\right) = \left[\begin{array}{c}<br /> x\\<br /> y-x\\<br /> \end{array}\right]<br />

so a direct computation of \phi(x,y) gives:
<br /> \phi(x,y) = 1 - x - (y-x) = 1-y<br />

Consider the point (x,y) = (1/2,1/2). We have \phi(1/2,1/2) = 1/2.

However, if we compute via the composition of the inverse, we have F_{K}^{-1}(1/2,1/2) = [1/2,0]^{T} and \hat{\phi} \circ F_{K}^{-1}(1/2,1/2) = 1 - 1/2 - 1/2 = 0.

Isn't it supposed to be

\hat{\phi}(F_K^{-1}(1/2,1/2) = \hat{\phi}(1/2,0) = 1 - 1/2 - 0 = 1/2
 
R136a1 said:
Isn't it supposed to be

\hat{\phi}(F_K^{-1}(1/2,1/2) = \hat{\phi}(1/2,0) = 1 - 1/2 - 0 = 1/2

Yup. I've still got an error in my code in the transformation part, so I'm going to take a look at it and re-edit the question :/ sorry for the confusion
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...

Similar threads

Back
Top