A Is My Transformation Matrix Correct?

kajalschopra
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have attached a pdf which shows clearly how I have carried out my transformations from one axis into another.

However, I am not convinced that it is right and I have described why I feel so.

I shall be grateful if someone can help me

Kajal
 

Attachments

Mathematics news on Phys.org
Can anyone please hekp? I am really struggling and will be extremely grateful
 
Could you please clarify in your figure, which of u,v,w maps into which of x,y,z, i.e., is x the (rotated) image of u, y of v etc?
 
u should map into the y axis
v should map into the z axis
w should map into the x axis

Thanks a lot, looking forward for the response

I think my calculation is wrong (in the pdf) because theta_v, theta_w and theta_t are final rotations (not intermediary rotations)

I need final transformation matrix

Angle between u and y-axis is (90 - theta_v) see the figure where theta_v is marked
Angle between v and z axis is theta_t (See figure theta_t is marked)
Angle between w and x-axis is (90 - theta_h). See figure where theta_h is marked

I need a transformation matrix
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top