Orientation consistency of a group

  • Thread starter Thread starter SanDiegoMike
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group Orientation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining the orientation consistency of a set of vectors based on their directional relationships. The user seeks an efficient method to verify if a given set of directional values, d(Ax, Ay), maintains consistency according to specific rules. They propose that the relationships can be represented in a matrix form, which should ideally have two distinct blocks of 1's along the diagonal and -1's elsewhere. A user suggests that permuting the matrix to this form may be a more efficient approach than brute force methods. Ultimately, the original poster finds a simple solution for testing the matrix's consistency.
SanDiegoMike
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I apologise if this has been asked before. I did a search, but quite frankly, I'm not even sure what to search for.

My gut feeling is that this problem has already been well defined and solved, so if someone could point me in the proper direction, that would be great.


Consider a set of n vectors which can point in the positive or negative direction: {A1, A2, ... An }

if Ax and Ay point in the same direction, then d(Ax,Ay) = 1.

Similarly, if they point in the opposite direction, then d(Ax,Ay) = -1.

Now if d(A1,A2) = 1, and d(A2,A3) = 1, then d(A1,A3) must equal 1 to be consistent.

Similarly, if d(A1,A4) = 1 and d(A4,A5) = -1, then d(A1,A5) must equal -1 to be consistent.

[I'm guessing for the trivial case of d(Ax,Ax), the answer would be 1]

the problem:

Assume that I'm given all d(Ax,Ay) for x,y = 1...n. What is an efficient way of determining if this set is consistent?

[note: I can do this brute force, but as n gets big, it becomes a mess.]

Thanks!
-Mike.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You also want d(Ax,Ay) = d(Ay,Ax), I assume.

One thought is that if you look at d(X_i,Y_j) as an entry in a matrix, you would expect the matrix to be permutable to one that has two square blocks of the 1's along the diagonal and -1 elsewhere. For example:

\begin{pmatrix} 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; -1 &amp; -1 \\<br /> 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; -1 &amp; -1\\<br /> 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; -1 &amp; -1\\<br /> 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; -1 &amp; -1\\<br /> -1&amp;-1&amp;-1&amp;-1&amp;1&amp;1\\<br /> -1&amp;-1&amp;-1&amp;-1&amp;1&amp;1 \end{pmatrix}

If you could prove the matrix had to have that form then you could test for this condition.
I'm assuming permuting a given matrix to that form is less work than "brute force".
 
Thanks Stephen, I do believe you're correct. That seems to be a very clever way forward.

It's been a long time since my undergraduate course work in linear algebra. Can you point me in the direction of an efficient algorithm for testing for such a matrix?
 
no worries, I figured out how to do the test. Very simple indeed. Thanks!
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top