How do you find the moment of inertia of a polygon?

AI Thread Summary
Calculating the moment of inertia for a polygon can be challenging, especially for those with four or more sides. The discussion highlights the complexity of using polygons beyond triangles, particularly in 3D graphics where vertex alignment and shading become issues. The original poster seeks a method to find the moment of inertia without decomposing the polygon into triangles, specifically for convex polygons on a 2D plane. There is a mention of confusion regarding 3D concepts, which are not applicable to the 2D scenario being addressed. The conversation emphasizes the need for a straightforward approach to this calculation.
epaik91
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm working on an engine right now, and I'm having trouble calculating the moment of inertia for a polygon. Is there any way to easily do this without decomposing the polygon into triangles?

edit: I've looked at the wikipedia page with examples on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_moments_of_inertia) and I'm having trouble understanding the last example, which seems to be what I need.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
That last example is, indeed, the moment of inertia formula for the polygon, and is the final result of having decomposed the polygon into triangles.

I derived it once for myself, I'm sorry that I'm not inm the mood to do it once again.
 
Any particular reason your polygons are not triangles in the first place? Polygons of 4 or more sides complicates everything.

4 or more sides means your polygon does not need to have all vertexes on the same plane, which complicates shading.

Building a BSP-tree gets more complicated the more sides your polygons have (you will end up splitting a whole lot).

and so on.

k
 
kenewbie said:
Any particular reason your polygons are not triangles in the first place? Polygons of 4 or more sides complicates everything.

4 or more sides means your polygon does not need to have all vertexes on the same plane, which complicates shading.

Building a BSP-tree gets more complicated the more sides your polygons have (you will end up splitting a whole lot).

and so on.

k

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm doing everything on a 2D plane. I'm not sure what you mean by stating that the vertexes won't be on the same plane, but I think you may be confusing 3D graphics with my problem (shading?). In addition, finding a way to solve this problem for convex polygons will achieve what I'm going for, which is why I'm avoiding BSP-trees or any other kind of decomposition of the polygon.
 
Yep, I was thinking 3D, sorry.

k
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top