Understanding Rotations on a Polar Grid | Geometry Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter mactony
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry
AI Thread Summary
When rotating an image on a polar grid, the angles for the bottom half can be represented as 180 degrees to 360 degrees, or alternatively, as 0 degrees to -180 degrees, depending on the reference direction. The polar grid encompasses a full rotation of 0 to 360 degrees, covering both the top and bottom halves. For mapping points from the top half to the bottom half, the angle can be expressed as a negative value, such as -75 degrees, or as an equivalent positive angle over 180 degrees. The choice of representation depends on the desired orientation and reference direction. Understanding these conventions is crucial for accurately mapping points during rotation.
mactony
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,


I'm rotating an image 105 degrees on a polar grid. I know the top half of the polar grid is 0 degrees to 180 degrees, but what about the bottom half? Is it the same as the top 0 degrees to 180 degrees, or does it go all the way to 360 degrees.

Oops, forgot to clarify in case my question is too vague. Ok, let's say I have an image on the top half of the grid which is 0 degrees to 180 degrees. I have to rotate it , and the new figure would end up on the bottom half the grid. Polar grids are shaped like a circle. I have to map the points of the original image and the new image. Would the bottom image points be 180 degrees to 360 degrees or 0 degrees to 180 degrees.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Generally, you would have the polar angle covering 0 to 360 degrees for a full rotation (i.e. it covers both top and bottom) but there is nothing wrong with 0 to 180 (counterclockwise) on the top and 0 to -180 (clockwise) on the bottom starting from the same reference direction (x-axis).
 
So if I was mapping the points, would it be -75 degrees for example, or would it be over 180 degrees, I am just rotating an image.
 
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...
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