MHB Translation Surfaces: Geometric Definition & Billiard Systems

Joppy
MHB
Messages
282
Reaction score
22
In this Wiki article, a geometric definition of a translation surface is given.

I'm lost in at the first line were it is stated that a given collection of polygons need not be convex. How is this possible? I am trying to understand translation surfaces from the perspective of dynamical systems, specifically, billiard systems. In this setting we can 'unfold' the trajectory of a point particle. But surely this unfolding process only works for trajectories confined to convex regions?

I suspect my confusion comes from the fact that generating a translation surface from unfolding a billiard trajectory, and generating one given the definition from Wiki are different things. I also don't understand what is meant by $s_j = s_i + \vec{v}_i$. Are we saying that for every side in a plane of polygons, there exist some other side which lies in the same direction?
Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey Joppy,

Here's my 2 cents.

Since it's about billiards, I imagine that we define a set of neighboring rectangles, each representing the table. Now we can shoot the ball, and instead of reflecting it against an edge, we let it roll into the next rectangle.
That does mean that various edges are actually the same, so they are identified with each other through a translation.

And instead of convex rectangles, we might also have non-convex polygons.
 
I like Serena said:
Hey Joppy,

Here's my 2 cents.

Since it's about billiards, I imagine that we define a set of neighboring rectangles, each representing the table. Now we can shoot the ball, and instead of reflecting it against an edge, we let it roll into the next rectangle.
That does mean that various edges are actually the same, so they are identified with each other through a translation.

Thanks! Yes that's how I understand it to work for convex polygonal billiards. I am curious as to how this works, if at all, for billiard tables which are not convex.
I like Serena said:
Now turn those rectangles into rectangular prisms and we have a translation space.

Do you mean we fold up this mesh of rectangles into a prism? For example, if we have a horizontal trajectory inside the unit square, and we let it roll into four squares (so that we have four squares side by side), do we fold them back up to obtain a cube with two faces missing?

Supposedly, using this method of unfolding, some trajectories will yield a torus as the translation surface. I would like to know in what sense the translation surface is a torus (for this case).
 
For a billiard table we wouldn't be folding squares up into a cube.
Instead we have 4 neighboring rectangles. And when the ball rolls over a rightmost edge, it will magically appear on the corresponding leftmost edge.Same for top and bottom.

Now imagine a rectangle with a halfsize rectangle removed from a corner. We put again 4 such shapes next each to other in a mirrored layout. There we go.

As for a torus, we effectively get that when we have just a single rectangle. That is, it's topologically equivalent to a torus.
 
I like Serena said:
For a billiard table we wouldn't be folding squares up into a cube.
Instead we have 4 neighboring rectangles. And when the ball rolls over a rightmost edge, it will magically appear on the corresponding leftmost edge.Same for top and bottom.

Now imagine a rectangle with a halfsize rectangle removed from a corner. We put again 4 such shapes next each other in a mirrored layout. There we go.

As for a torus, we effectively get that when we have just a single rectangle. That is, it's topologically equivalent to a torus.

Thanks! :)

(I should have read this before asking..)

edit: This article is also nice, if anyone is interested.
 
Last edited:
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