MHB Translation Surfaces: Geometric Definition & Billiard Systems

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding translation surfaces through the lens of billiard systems, highlighting that a collection of polygons used to define these surfaces need not be convex. Participants clarify that the unfolding process of billiard trajectories can apply to non-convex polygons, allowing edges to be identified through translations. The conversation also explores how trajectories can yield a toroidal structure when a single rectangle is used, emphasizing the topological equivalence to a torus. Additionally, the concept of neighboring rectangles is discussed, illustrating how a ball's movement across edges leads to a seamless transition between surfaces. Overall, the dialogue deepens the understanding of translation surfaces in relation to geometric and dynamical 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:
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
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