Transforming Triangle in 3 Space with z = 1-x-y

  • Thread starter Thread starter albert281
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transform Triangle
albert281
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I am trying to transform a triangle in 3 space with the constraint that z = 1-x-y. At this point I have the following transformation matrix A, and three vector equations:

| a1 a2 a3 |
A = | a4 a5 a6 |
| a7 a8 a9 |



A*x1 = k1*y1
A*x2 = k2*y2
A*x3 = k3*y3




I know the vertices of both triangles, before and after the transformation. The problem is that I can't put the above description in a manner that is solveable...without some input to clarify the issue.

The transformed triangle points can move in a manner to suggest stretching and translation, but not rotation. Given that z is dependent on x and y, how can I constrain this problem such that I can generate n equations in n unknowns?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I figured out how to solve for a7, a8 and a9 by using the constraint x+y+z=1 and solving for 3 equations in 3 unknowns. I found k1=k2=k3=1. I only have 6 equations in 6 unknowns left! Yay!
 
##\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...
Back
Top