Similarity transform vs compound transform

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I have been trying to digest the concept of similarity transformation, but the more I study it, the more I get confused.



To start with, let's have two reference frames 0 and 1 with a homogeneous transformation $T^0_1$ relating the two frames (the superscript is the frame we convert to, so $T^0_1$ takes a vector in frame 1 and transforms it to frame 0).



Now, if $A$ is a linear transformation expressed in frame 0 and $B$ is the similar transformation to $A$, but expressed in frame 1, then $A$ and $B$ are related as follows:



$$
A=(T^0_1) B (T^0_1)^-1
$$



However, I have also learned how to compound transformations. So, since $B$ is expressed relative to frame 1, then, if I premultiply it by $T^0_1$, I get an equivalent transformation (call it $C$) but relative to frame 0, isn't that right? But wait a second, shouldn't $C$ be our $A$ above? However, the two quantities don't match. So, please tell me what I'm missing here.







share|cite|improve this question























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    I have been trying to digest the concept of similarity transformation, but the more I study it, the more I get confused.



    To start with, let's have two reference frames 0 and 1 with a homogeneous transformation $T^0_1$ relating the two frames (the superscript is the frame we convert to, so $T^0_1$ takes a vector in frame 1 and transforms it to frame 0).



    Now, if $A$ is a linear transformation expressed in frame 0 and $B$ is the similar transformation to $A$, but expressed in frame 1, then $A$ and $B$ are related as follows:



    $$
    A=(T^0_1) B (T^0_1)^-1
    $$



    However, I have also learned how to compound transformations. So, since $B$ is expressed relative to frame 1, then, if I premultiply it by $T^0_1$, I get an equivalent transformation (call it $C$) but relative to frame 0, isn't that right? But wait a second, shouldn't $C$ be our $A$ above? However, the two quantities don't match. So, please tell me what I'm missing here.







    share|cite|improve this question





















      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      I have been trying to digest the concept of similarity transformation, but the more I study it, the more I get confused.



      To start with, let's have two reference frames 0 and 1 with a homogeneous transformation $T^0_1$ relating the two frames (the superscript is the frame we convert to, so $T^0_1$ takes a vector in frame 1 and transforms it to frame 0).



      Now, if $A$ is a linear transformation expressed in frame 0 and $B$ is the similar transformation to $A$, but expressed in frame 1, then $A$ and $B$ are related as follows:



      $$
      A=(T^0_1) B (T^0_1)^-1
      $$



      However, I have also learned how to compound transformations. So, since $B$ is expressed relative to frame 1, then, if I premultiply it by $T^0_1$, I get an equivalent transformation (call it $C$) but relative to frame 0, isn't that right? But wait a second, shouldn't $C$ be our $A$ above? However, the two quantities don't match. So, please tell me what I'm missing here.







      share|cite|improve this question











      I have been trying to digest the concept of similarity transformation, but the more I study it, the more I get confused.



      To start with, let's have two reference frames 0 and 1 with a homogeneous transformation $T^0_1$ relating the two frames (the superscript is the frame we convert to, so $T^0_1$ takes a vector in frame 1 and transforms it to frame 0).



      Now, if $A$ is a linear transformation expressed in frame 0 and $B$ is the similar transformation to $A$, but expressed in frame 1, then $A$ and $B$ are related as follows:



      $$
      A=(T^0_1) B (T^0_1)^-1
      $$



      However, I have also learned how to compound transformations. So, since $B$ is expressed relative to frame 1, then, if I premultiply it by $T^0_1$, I get an equivalent transformation (call it $C$) but relative to frame 0, isn't that right? But wait a second, shouldn't $C$ be our $A$ above? However, the two quantities don't match. So, please tell me what I'm missing here.









      share|cite|improve this question










      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question









      asked Aug 7 at 19:51









      user8396743

      111




      111




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          You need to be very careful to separate the vector from its representation in a particular basis. Also, compounding transforms doesn't correspond to expressing a transformation in a different basis -- infact this is precisely what similarity transformations are for. So maybe you want to know how the similarity transformation arises.



          Say that expressing $B$ in frame 1, relative to frame 0, gives you a matrix $C$. Then what property must $C$ satisfy? It should hold that vectors (the little pointed arrows, "geometric entities", or whatever you imagine them to be) transform independent of the frame. Colloquially speaking, a length of 10 m should be represented as the number 10 if you are using a scale of length 1 m, and the number 5 if you are using a scale of length 2 m, but, the vector corresponding to both the representations is the same -- it is just being expressed in two different basis.



          Writing out what is decided on above formally, you have that if you take a vector represented in frame 1 as $v$ and multiply it by the matrix $B$, then the vector that you get is the same as the vector you obtain by multiplying the representation of the vector in frame 0 by matrix $C$. But, the representation of the vector in frame $0$ is, in your notation, given by $T_1^0 v$.



          So you have: $V(CT_1^0v) = V(Bv)$, where $V(cdot)$ denotes the vector corresponding to its expression in a particular frame. But, you know you can transform the expression of the transformed vector $CT_1^0v$ (the important part, and where you are possibly slipping up -- this is an expression in frame 0) into an expression of the vector in frame 1 by $(T_1^0)^-1(CT_1^0v)$. But, the vector is also expressed in frame 1 as $Bv$. So, these expressions must be the same. This is true for all vectors, and so: $(T_1^0)^-1CT_1^0 = B$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );








             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2875338%2fsimilarity-transform-vs-compound-transform%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            0
            down vote













            You need to be very careful to separate the vector from its representation in a particular basis. Also, compounding transforms doesn't correspond to expressing a transformation in a different basis -- infact this is precisely what similarity transformations are for. So maybe you want to know how the similarity transformation arises.



            Say that expressing $B$ in frame 1, relative to frame 0, gives you a matrix $C$. Then what property must $C$ satisfy? It should hold that vectors (the little pointed arrows, "geometric entities", or whatever you imagine them to be) transform independent of the frame. Colloquially speaking, a length of 10 m should be represented as the number 10 if you are using a scale of length 1 m, and the number 5 if you are using a scale of length 2 m, but, the vector corresponding to both the representations is the same -- it is just being expressed in two different basis.



            Writing out what is decided on above formally, you have that if you take a vector represented in frame 1 as $v$ and multiply it by the matrix $B$, then the vector that you get is the same as the vector you obtain by multiplying the representation of the vector in frame 0 by matrix $C$. But, the representation of the vector in frame $0$ is, in your notation, given by $T_1^0 v$.



            So you have: $V(CT_1^0v) = V(Bv)$, where $V(cdot)$ denotes the vector corresponding to its expression in a particular frame. But, you know you can transform the expression of the transformed vector $CT_1^0v$ (the important part, and where you are possibly slipping up -- this is an expression in frame 0) into an expression of the vector in frame 1 by $(T_1^0)^-1(CT_1^0v)$. But, the vector is also expressed in frame 1 as $Bv$. So, these expressions must be the same. This is true for all vectors, and so: $(T_1^0)^-1CT_1^0 = B$.






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              You need to be very careful to separate the vector from its representation in a particular basis. Also, compounding transforms doesn't correspond to expressing a transformation in a different basis -- infact this is precisely what similarity transformations are for. So maybe you want to know how the similarity transformation arises.



              Say that expressing $B$ in frame 1, relative to frame 0, gives you a matrix $C$. Then what property must $C$ satisfy? It should hold that vectors (the little pointed arrows, "geometric entities", or whatever you imagine them to be) transform independent of the frame. Colloquially speaking, a length of 10 m should be represented as the number 10 if you are using a scale of length 1 m, and the number 5 if you are using a scale of length 2 m, but, the vector corresponding to both the representations is the same -- it is just being expressed in two different basis.



              Writing out what is decided on above formally, you have that if you take a vector represented in frame 1 as $v$ and multiply it by the matrix $B$, then the vector that you get is the same as the vector you obtain by multiplying the representation of the vector in frame 0 by matrix $C$. But, the representation of the vector in frame $0$ is, in your notation, given by $T_1^0 v$.



              So you have: $V(CT_1^0v) = V(Bv)$, where $V(cdot)$ denotes the vector corresponding to its expression in a particular frame. But, you know you can transform the expression of the transformed vector $CT_1^0v$ (the important part, and where you are possibly slipping up -- this is an expression in frame 0) into an expression of the vector in frame 1 by $(T_1^0)^-1(CT_1^0v)$. But, the vector is also expressed in frame 1 as $Bv$. So, these expressions must be the same. This is true for all vectors, and so: $(T_1^0)^-1CT_1^0 = B$.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                You need to be very careful to separate the vector from its representation in a particular basis. Also, compounding transforms doesn't correspond to expressing a transformation in a different basis -- infact this is precisely what similarity transformations are for. So maybe you want to know how the similarity transformation arises.



                Say that expressing $B$ in frame 1, relative to frame 0, gives you a matrix $C$. Then what property must $C$ satisfy? It should hold that vectors (the little pointed arrows, "geometric entities", or whatever you imagine them to be) transform independent of the frame. Colloquially speaking, a length of 10 m should be represented as the number 10 if you are using a scale of length 1 m, and the number 5 if you are using a scale of length 2 m, but, the vector corresponding to both the representations is the same -- it is just being expressed in two different basis.



                Writing out what is decided on above formally, you have that if you take a vector represented in frame 1 as $v$ and multiply it by the matrix $B$, then the vector that you get is the same as the vector you obtain by multiplying the representation of the vector in frame 0 by matrix $C$. But, the representation of the vector in frame $0$ is, in your notation, given by $T_1^0 v$.



                So you have: $V(CT_1^0v) = V(Bv)$, where $V(cdot)$ denotes the vector corresponding to its expression in a particular frame. But, you know you can transform the expression of the transformed vector $CT_1^0v$ (the important part, and where you are possibly slipping up -- this is an expression in frame 0) into an expression of the vector in frame 1 by $(T_1^0)^-1(CT_1^0v)$. But, the vector is also expressed in frame 1 as $Bv$. So, these expressions must be the same. This is true for all vectors, and so: $(T_1^0)^-1CT_1^0 = B$.






                share|cite|improve this answer















                You need to be very careful to separate the vector from its representation in a particular basis. Also, compounding transforms doesn't correspond to expressing a transformation in a different basis -- infact this is precisely what similarity transformations are for. So maybe you want to know how the similarity transformation arises.



                Say that expressing $B$ in frame 1, relative to frame 0, gives you a matrix $C$. Then what property must $C$ satisfy? It should hold that vectors (the little pointed arrows, "geometric entities", or whatever you imagine them to be) transform independent of the frame. Colloquially speaking, a length of 10 m should be represented as the number 10 if you are using a scale of length 1 m, and the number 5 if you are using a scale of length 2 m, but, the vector corresponding to both the representations is the same -- it is just being expressed in two different basis.



                Writing out what is decided on above formally, you have that if you take a vector represented in frame 1 as $v$ and multiply it by the matrix $B$, then the vector that you get is the same as the vector you obtain by multiplying the representation of the vector in frame 0 by matrix $C$. But, the representation of the vector in frame $0$ is, in your notation, given by $T_1^0 v$.



                So you have: $V(CT_1^0v) = V(Bv)$, where $V(cdot)$ denotes the vector corresponding to its expression in a particular frame. But, you know you can transform the expression of the transformed vector $CT_1^0v$ (the important part, and where you are possibly slipping up -- this is an expression in frame 0) into an expression of the vector in frame 1 by $(T_1^0)^-1(CT_1^0v)$. But, the vector is also expressed in frame 1 as $Bv$. So, these expressions must be the same. This is true for all vectors, and so: $(T_1^0)^-1CT_1^0 = B$.







                share|cite|improve this answer















                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Aug 7 at 21:31


























                answered Aug 7 at 20:38









                indivisibleatom

                306




                306






















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded


























                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2875338%2fsimilarity-transform-vs-compound-transform%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    這個網誌中的熱門文章

                    How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                    Mutual Information Always Non-negative

                    Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?