Author 
Message 
mariano.suarezalvarez@gma science forum addict
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 58

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:52 am Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



Terry Padden wrote:
Quote:  I am bothered by the mathematics of rotations. It is I believe
mathematically acceptable for any physical reality to be defined on an
abstract axiomatic basis. Then anything that fulfills a given defining set
of axioms for a type of mathematical object is a mathematically valid
example of the defined mathematical object.

A set does not make a vector space. You need to specify
two operations, addition and multiplication by scalars. Moreover,
these need to satisfy certain relations, which you have seen in Halmos'
book.
Now, you want to view the set of rotations as a vector space,
somehow. Well. You need to decide what those two operations will be.
Before you do that, the question "are rotations a vector space?"
is meaningless.
Quote:  [snip]
NB I am aware that 2D rotations donotcommute, but it seems to me that
that has nothing to do with axiomatics or my questions.

Actually, the composition operation on rotations (with a fixed center)
in the plane *is* commutative.
You may want to review Halmos' presentation of what a vector space
is, if you think that commutativity is irrelevant, by the way...
 m 

Back to top 


William Elliot science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1906

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:51 am Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Terry Padden wrote:
Quote:  Now consider simple (= 1D) rotations of a spherical object about any given
fixed axis.
You mean 3D rotations? 
Quote:  Could someone point out to me in what way such 1D rotations do NOT meet the
axiomatic criteria for a Vector Space.
In 3D, rotations are represented as a vector in the direction of the axis 
of rotation with magnitude of angular displacement.
Quote:  If 1D rotations are axiomatically vectors, why cannot they be axiomatically
compounded into multidimensional vector spaces ?
Because the cross product doesn't? 
Quote:  NB I am aware that 2D rotations donotcommute,

Planar 2D rotations around a point are basically scalars. 

Back to top 


Terry Padden science forum beginner
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 28

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:23 am Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



<mariano.suarezalvarez@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153025545.663758.95150@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  Terry Padden wrote:
I am bothered by the mathematics of rotations. It is I believe
mathematically acceptable for any physical reality to be defined on an
abstract axiomatic basis. Then anything that fulfills a given defining
set
of axioms for a type of mathematical object is a mathematically valid
example of the defined mathematical object.
A set does not make a vector space.

You B***** Fool. Who mentioned sets !!
Quote:  You need to specify
two operations, addition and multiplication by scalars.

The obvious ones you moron. You can ADD rotations; and you can SCALE
rotations by a suitable Field. Idiot !!
Quote:  [snip]
NB I am aware that 2D rotations donotcommute, but it seems to me that
that has nothing to do with axiomatics or my questions.
Actually, the composition operation on rotations (with a fixed center)
in the plane *is* commutative.

Yes you fool  but that is in 1D ; and I wrote donotcommute in 2D.
Can't
you even read a simple sentence ???
Quote: 
You may want to review Halmos' presentation of what a vector space
is, if you think that commutativity is irrelevant, by the way...
NO ! I want you to go AWAY !!!!!! 


Back to top 


Terry Padden science forum beginner
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 28

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:23 am Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



"William Elliot" <marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.0607152245480.22224@vista.hevanet.com...
Quote:  On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Terry Padden wrote:
Now consider simple (= 1D) rotations of a spherical object about any
given
fixed axis.
You mean 3D rotations?

NO, you fool. The axis is fixed. Only 1D rotations are allowed (so far)
Quote:  Could someone point out to me in what way such 1D rotations do NOT meet
the
axiomatic criteria for a Vector Space.
In 3D, rotations are represented as a vector in the direction of the axis
of rotation with magnitude of angular displacement.

PLEASE GO AWAY and keep this irrelevant 3D nonsense to yourself
Quote:  If 1D rotations are axiomatically vectors, why cannot they be
axiomatically
compounded into multidimensional vector spaces ?
Because the cross product doesn't?

You are showing gross stupidity by this irrelevance. I am asking about
AXIOMS  not mechanics. Please stop embarrassing yourself in public.
Quote:  NB I am aware that 2D rotations donotcommute,
Planar 2D rotations around a point are basically scalars.

That's your own little secret. Keep it that way. Now please go away and
think about axioms for a few years. 

Back to top 


William Elliot science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1906

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:33 am Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Terry Padden wrote:
Quote:  "William Elliot" <marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Terry Padden wrote:
Now consider simple (= 1D) rotations of a spherical object about any
given fixed axis.
You mean 3D rotations?
NO, you fool.

Get some manners. 

Back to top 


Narcoleptic Insomniac science forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 323

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:58 am Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



On Jul 16, 2006 2:21 AM, Terry Padden wrote:
Quote:  mariano.suarezalvarez@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153025545.663758.95150@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Terry Padden wrote:
I am bothered by the mathematics of rotations. It
is I believe mathematically acceptable for any
physical reality to be defined on an abstract
axiomatic basis. Then anything that fulfills a
given defining set of axioms for a type of
mathematical object is a mathematically valid
example of the defined mathematical object.
A set does not make a vector space.
You B***** Fool. Who mentioned sets !!

YOU mentioned sets implicitly when you brought up vector
spaces!
Quote:  You need to specify two operations, addition and
multiplication by scalars.
The obvious ones you moron. You can ADD rotations;
and you can SCALE rotations by a suitable Field.
Idiot !!

Since rotations are just transformations on R^3, when you
ADD rotations you're just looking at the composition of
two or more transformations.
Moreover, since these transformations can be represented
as matrices the composition of them is definately NOT
VECTOR ADDITION!!!
Quote:  [snip]
NB I am aware that 2D rotations donotcommute,
but it seems to me that that has nothing to do with
axiomatics or my questions.
Actually, the composition operation on rotations
(with a fixed center) in the plane *is* commutative.
Yes you fool  but that is in 1D ; and I wrote
donotcommute in 2D. Can't you even read a simple
sentence ???
You may want to review Halmos' presentation of what
a vector space is, if you think that commutativity is
irrelevant, by the way...
NO ! I want you to go AWAY !!!!!!

Stop being such a douchebag. 

Back to top 


Terry Padden science forum beginner
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 28

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:54 am Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



"Narcoleptic Insomniac" <i_have_narcoleptic_insomnia@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:7171135.1153043965570.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen.mathforum.org...
Quote:  On Jul 16, 2006 2:21 AM, Terry Padden wrote:
mariano.suarezalvarez@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153025545.663758.95150@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Terry Padden wrote:
I am bothered by the mathematics of rotations. It
is I believe mathematically acceptable for any
physical reality to be defined on an abstract
axiomatic basis. Then anything that fulfills a
given defining set of axioms for a type of
mathematical object is a mathematically valid
example of the defined mathematical object.
Since rotations are just transformations on R^3, when you
ADD rotations you're just looking at the composition of
two or more transformations.
Moreover, since these transformations can be represented
as matrices the composition of them is definately NOT
VECTOR ADDITION!!!

What has any of that mumbojumbo got to do with the AXIOMS 
PLEASE GO AWAY and stop parading your stupidity. Rotations have nothing to
do with R3. 

Back to top 


Narcoleptic Insomniac science forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 323

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:58 am Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



On Jul 16, 2006 5:56 AM CT, Terry Padden wrote:
Quote:  "Narcoleptic Insomniac"
i_have_narcoleptic_insomnia@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7171135.1153043965570.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen.mathforum.org...
On Jul 16, 2006 2:21 AM, Terry Padden wrote:
mariano.suarezalvarez@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153025545.663758.95150@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Terry Padden wrote:
I am bothered by the mathematics of rotations. It
is I believe mathematically acceptable for any
physical reality to be defined on an abstract
axiomatic basis. Then anything that fulfills a
given defining set of axioms for a type of
mathematical object is a mathematically valid
example of the defined mathematical object.
Since rotations are just transformations on R^3,
when you ADD rotations you're just looking at the
composition of two or more transformations.
Moreover, since these transformations can be
represented as matrices the composition of them is
definately NOT VECTOR ADDITION!!!
What has any of that mumbojumbo got to do with the
AXIOMS 

It's not "mumbojumbo" but fairly basic linear algebra...
...you know, the stuff you learn *after* you see those
axioms.
Quote:  PLEASE GO AWAY and stop parading your stupidity.

Hahahaha, seriously, get some new material. For your sake
I hope that you're just trolling and doing this for fun.
Quote:  Rotations have nothing to do with R3.

Actually, you cut out the part in this thread where *you*
began considering simple rotations of a sphereical object.
If you would look past your beloved axioms for a moment
you'd see that any rotation of a sphereical object can be
described as a transformation of R^3 > R^3.
Going back to your original topic (simple rotations (in
1D) of a sphereical object and why they're NOT vectors),
it suffices to just consider a simple rotation about the
xaxis since we can transform any arbitrary axis to the
xaxis.
We can the described this rotation by the matrix A(t) =
[1 0 0]
[0 cos(t) sin(t)]
[0 sin(t) cos(t)].
The set of all rotation matrices of this type, along with
the 3x3 identity matrix, will form a *group* structure,
but I can't see why you would think this could generate
a vector space.
Regards,
Kyle Czarnecki 

Back to top 


G.E. Ivey science forum Guru
Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 308

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



Why should any one respond to any question by you in the future? Several people have responded, as best they could, to your somewhat vague questions. (What, exactly do you mean by a "1D rotation". I can see "flipping", changing (x, 0, 0) to (x, 0, 0) but how can you "rotate" through an angle in 1 dimension?) You immediately started calling them "fools". That's not a good way to convince people to answer your questions. 

Back to top 


Terry Padden science forum beginner
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 28

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:55 pm Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



"G.E. Ivey" <george.ivey@gallaudet.edu> wrote in message
news:627837.1153051489453.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen.mathforum.org...
Quote:  Why should any one respond to any question by you in the future? Several
people have responded, as best they could, to your somewhat vague
questions. (What, exactly do you mean by a "1D rotation". I can see
"flipping", changing (x, 0, 0) to (x, 0, 0) but how can you "rotate"
through an angle in 1 dimension?) You immediately started calling them
"fools". That's not a good way to convince people to answer your
questions.

For 45 years taxes from my hard earned income have been used to fund things
such as the internet and university education. It took me some time to
frame the question. For that it is not unreasonablke for me to expect
people to make a reasonable effort to understand a question before replying
to it . As a starter they should at least read it.
But what rreally makes me see red is the results of all that expenditure on
mathematical education  the results as displayed by prior respondents and
you.
What is unclear about "1D rotations about a fixed axis" ? It is specified
by a 1tuple x an anglular displacement; just like a 1D translation is
specified by a 1tuple x a linear displacement.
Rotations and Vectors have nothing intrinsically to do with Rn or any
similar presupposition. Rotations are just angular displacements  nothing
necessarily to do with translations at all ! Vectors are just things which
satisfy the axioms.
My standards are high but not unreasonably so considering my forced
financial investment. If they seem unreasonable to you and others remember
that as GBS told us all progress depends on unreasonable people.
My question is clear and straightforward. If you don't understand it blame
your maths professors; not me.
By the way the usual physical measurement of 1D rotations is Time in hours,
minutes, seconds, etc. Perhaps ypu have heard of Babylonian Maths; perhaps
you know that miniutes and seconds also measure angles etc. So far all I
have got back is the maths of Babel.
PLEASE can the next reply be from someone who understands the question. 

Back to top 


Narcoleptic Insomniac science forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 323

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



On Jul 16, 2006 7:57 AM CT, Terry Padden wrote:
Quote:  "G.E. Ivey" <george.ivey@gallaudet.edu> wrote in message
news:627837.1153051489453.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen.mathforum.org...
Why should any one respond to any question by you
in the future? Several people have responded, as
best they could, to your somewhat vague questions.
(What, exactly do you mean by a "1D rotation". I
can see "flipping", changing (x, 0, 0) to (x, 0, 0)
but how can you "rotate" through an angle in 1
dimension?) You immediately started calling them
"fools". That's not a good way to convince people
to answer your questions.
For 45 years taxes from my hard earned income have
been used to fund things such as the internet and
university education. It took me some time to frame
the question. For that it is not unreasonablke for me
to expect people to make a reasonable effort to
understand a question before replying to it . As a
starter they should at least read it.

Well that explains the hostility and senility.
Quote:  But what rreally makes me see red is the results of
all that expenditure on mathematical education  the
results as displayed by prior respondents and you.

Clearly you're mistaken; from the little time I've spent
on these forums I've come to know both William and G. E.
indirectly and they both happen to be very knowledgeble.
Quote:  What is unclear about "1D rotations about a fixed
axis" ? It is specified by a 1tuple x an anglular
displacement; just like a 1D translation is specified
by a 1tuple x a linear displacement.
Rotations and Vectors have nothing intrinsically to
do with Rn or any similar presupposition. Rotations
are just angular displacements  nothing necessarily to
do with translations at all ! Vectors are just things
which satisfy the axioms.

I definately agree with you on this last paragraph.
Although, when I mentioned earlier that spherical
rotations could be viewed as mappings on vector spaces
you called it "mumbojumbo" and called me a fool. I guess
I must be a fool for thinking that rotations are just
transformations that *act* on vector spaces and are *not*
vectors themselves.
Quote:  My standards are high but not unreasonably so
considering my forced financial investment. If they
seem unreasonable to you and others remember that as
GBS told us all progress depends on unreasonable people.

I would like to forget anything that any Bush has told us.
Quote:  My question is clear and straightforward. If you don't
understand it blame your maths professors; not me.

The topic of this thread is almost as meaningful as
"Colors  why are they not feelings".
Quote:  By the way the usual physical measurement of 1D
rotations is Time in hours, minutes, seconds, etc.
Perhaps ypu have heard of Babylonian Maths; perhaps
you know that miniutes and seconds also measure
angles etc. So far all I have got back is the maths of
Babel.
PLEASE can the next reply be from someone who
understands the question. 


Back to top 


Jürgen R. science forum beginner
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 12

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 04:42:30 GMT, "Terry Padden"
<TPadden@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Quote:  I am bothered by the mathematics of rotations. It is I believe
mathematically acceptable for any physical reality to be defined on an
abstract axiomatic basis. Then anything that fulfills a given defining set
of axioms for a type of mathematical object is a mathematically valid
example of the defined mathematical object.
Now consider simple (= 1D) rotations of a spherical object about any given
fixed axis.
Superficially, to me (not a mathematician), such "angular displacements"
meet all of the formal axioms for a Vector Space (as given in e.g. Halmos)
as well as 1D linear displacements do.
Could someone point out to me in what way such 1D rotations do NOT meet the
axiomatic criteria for a Vector Space.

They meet the requirements. It's a onedimensional vector space.
Quote: 
If 1D rotations are axiomatically vectors, why cannot they be axiomatically
compounded into multidimensional vector spaces ?

I have no idea what you mean by "axiomatically compounded", but the
answer is that you can form the direct product of any number of such
spaces in the usual way to get higherdimensional vector spaces.
Quote: 
NB I am aware that 2D rotations donotcommute, but it seems to me that
that has nothing to do with axiomatics or my questions. I am not suggesting
that rotations ought to be physically vectors. I am just trying to get
clarification of the math picture for vectors.



Back to top 


Stephen MontgomerySmith1 science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 487

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



Terry Padden wrote:
Quote:  I am bothered by the mathematics of rotations. It is I believe
mathematically acceptable for any physical reality to be defined on an
abstract axiomatic basis. Then anything that fulfills a given defining set
of axioms for a type of mathematical object is a mathematically valid
example of the defined mathematical object.
Now consider simple (= 1D) rotations of a spherical object about any given
fixed axis.
Superficially, to me (not a mathematician), such "angular displacements"
meet all of the formal axioms for a Vector Space (as given in e.g. Halmos)
as well as 1D linear displacements do.
Could someone point out to me in what way such 1D rotations do NOT meet the
axiomatic criteria for a Vector Space.
If 1D rotations are axiomatically vectors, why cannot they be axiomatically
compounded into multidimensional vector spaces ?
NB I am aware that 2D rotations donotcommute, but it seems to me that
that has nothing to do with axiomatics or my questions. I am not suggesting
that rotations ought to be physically vectors. I am just trying to get
clarification of the math picture for vectors.

I think people might be confused about what you mean by "1D rotations."
The convention normally used is to describe rotations in R^n as n
dimensional rotations. I don't think you are following this.
Now the sophisticated way to describe your issue, I think, is to say
that there are two answers, depending upon whether you are describing
the Lie Group or the Lie Algebra.
Actual rotations are not described by vectors, but by matrices 
orthogonal matrices. The composition of two rotations is not any kind
of addition, but multiplication of the matrices. The orthogonal
matrices do not form a vector space. This is true even if you restrict
yourself to rotations about a fixed axis (what I think you mean by 1D
rotations) because rotation by 360 degrees is the same as rotation by 0
degrees, and as such it is impossible to properly define multiplication
by a scalar. And if you don't restrict yourself to rotations about a
fixed axis, matrix multiplication doesn't even commute (as you point out
above).
However the word "rotation" could also mean the rate of rotation, for
example "18 degrees per second clockwise about a certain axis." In that
case rotations do add like a vector space. However you should be
careful, for example in 4 dimensional space, the rotations is a 6
dimensional space (in general n goes to n(n1)/2).
By the way, the notion of rotation (in the first sense I described)
about "an axis" really only has meaning if the underlying space is two
or three dimensional. In 4 or 5 dimensional space, the generic rotation
will have two axes.
Stephen 

Back to top 


Sylvain Croussette science forum beginner
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 32

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:04 pm Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



G.E. Ivey wrote:
Quote:  Why should any one respond to any question by you in the future? Several people have
responded, as best they could, to your somewhat vague questions. (What, exactly do
you mean by a "1D rotation". I can see "flipping", changing (x, 0, 0) to (x, 0, 0) but how
can you "rotate" through an angle in 1 dimension?) You immediately started calling them
"fools". That's not a good way to convince people to answer your questions.

I think what he means by 1D rotation is a rotation in 3 dimensional
space but around one axis only. This is the jargon used in some fields
like robotics where a 1D rotation joint is a joint that rotates around
only one axis. This seems to be confirmed by his assertion that 2D
rotations do not commute. To him this means a rotation in 3 dimensions
but around 2 different axes. It is true that they do not commute in
general. The problem is that he is not a mathematician (as he said
himself) and he is using "1D" and "2D" in a different context than
that of a mathematician. 

Back to top 


Abraham Buckingham science forum addict
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 98

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Rotations  why are they not vectors



Terry Padden wrote:
Quote:  I am bothered by the mathematics of rotations. It is I believe
mathematically acceptable for any physical reality to be defined on an
abstract axiomatic basis. Then anything that fulfills a given defining set
of axioms for a type of mathematical object is a mathematically valid
example of the defined mathematical object.
Now consider simple (= 1D) rotations of a spherical object about any given
fixed axis.
Superficially, to me (not a mathematician), such "angular displacements"
meet all of the formal axioms for a Vector Space (as given in e.g. Halmos)
as well as 1D linear displacements do.
Could someone point out to me in what way such 1D rotations do NOT meet the
axiomatic criteria for a Vector Space.
If 1D rotations are axiomatically vectors, why cannot they be axiomatically
compounded into multidimensional vector spaces ?
NB I am aware that 2D rotations donotcommute, but it seems to me that
that has nothing to do with axiomatics or my questions. I am not suggesting
that rotations ought to be physically vectors. I am just trying to get
clarification of the math picture for vectors.

For clarification please explicitly demonstrate your rotations and how
they satisfy the the axioms of a vector space. 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:29 am  All times are GMT

