RNS and product notations

Discussion of shapes with curves and holes in various dimensions.

RNS and product notations

Postby PWrong » Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:37 am

Did we just arbitrarily define 1 = line, 2 = circle, etc?

Pretty much. The digit notation and group notation together are called RNS notation. Putting two objects together gives the cartesian product of the two objects. I'm still not really sure what putting brackets around an object does. There's a way to convert directly from RNS to parametric equations or to implicit cartesian equations, but not to "product notation".

moonlord: Split from "Definition of the taper operation"
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby bo198214 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:51 am

PWrong wrote:I'm still not really sure what putting brackets around an object does.


And thats what makes me really wonder. There are extended threads using this notation and it seemes that nobody really knows what it means!
(Rob thought it was bending the object and gluing cells together, no its spheration, for which there is no clear definition either. I mean how can you guys count rotopes, determine volume, derive parametric equations if everybody has its own definition of the parenthesis?!)

So I want to have a clear definition of these parentheses, on which everybody agrees here. And then this should be put into the wiki. The wiki consists anyway of too much discussion of too undefined things.
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby PWrong » Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:16 am

no its spheration, for which there is no clear definition either

Yes there is. It's at the end of this thread
For some reason, noone replied on that thread except wendy.

I mean how can you guys count rotopes, determine volume, derive parametric equations if everybody has its own definition of the parenthesis?!

The parenthesis can be defined using the conversion to cartesian equations. The only thing we don't know is how to convert from RNS to product notation.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby bo198214 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:55 am

PWrong wrote:
no its spheration, for which there is no clear definition either

Yes there is. It's at the end of this thread

Sorry, but I dont see it there. And I am also a bit unwilling to read a whole thread with "your notation" and "my notation" only to have again uncertainty about the base terms.

Would you be so nice and put a final definition of spheration into this thread together with a (maybe parametric equation) definition of the RNS notation? Or even better into the wiki with a link here.
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby PWrong » Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:35 am

Essentially, you take the normal space of A at each point, combined with a few extra dimensions. These are the new axes. Now put a B at every point in A, aligned along these axes.

Example: circle#sphere
A circle is a 1D shape in 2D space, so it has a normal vector at each point(other objects may have a normal plane or some other space). So we have a 1D normal space. A sphere requires 3 dimensions, so we need two more.

So at each point in the circle, we place a sphere aligned along three axes: the normal vector of the circle, the z-axis and the w-axis.

Here's a strict definition. Let A be a kD object in nD space, let B be an mD sphere, and let N be the normal space of A. Then,
A#B = {u + v| u E A(e<sub>1</sub> ... e<sub>k</sub>), v E B(N, e<sub>k+1</sub> ... e<sub>k+m-n</sub>) }

The e<sub>i</sub> are basis vectors, and E is the "element" symbol.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby bo198214 » Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:32 pm

Hm, a strange definition of spheration where the word "spheration" does not occur. So what has this # now todo with the parentheses in RNS notation (as when Rob said the parentheses mean spheration)?
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby Keiji » Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:40 pm

(x1) = x # circle.

But, how is the tiger, (22), circle x circle # circle? I don't get it.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby bo198214 » Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:36 pm

Alas, and I thought I am the only one *nudge*

Hm, but then would (11) be the cylinder? No Rob, this can not be.

So do I see it right that the RNS notation is basicly a notation to define parametric functions where the corresponding shape is yielded by its zero set?

So that (F<sub>1</sub>...F<sub>n</sub>) is defined as F<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup>+....+F<sub>n</sub><sup>2</sup> - R<sup>2</sup>, where R is a constant?

The equation for the tiger is:
(sqrt(x^2+y^2) - r1)^2 + (sqrt(z^2+w^2) - r2)^2 < r3 ^2

Rob, cant you make a slicing sequence for the tiger (in a new thread)?
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby PWrong » Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:45 am

Hm, a strange definition of spheration where the word "spheration" does not occur.

Sorry, forgot to mention that spheration is the same as the torus product. A#B is A spherated by B. Note that B is always a sphere of some dimension.

So that (F1...Fn) is defined as F12+....+Fn2 - R2, where R is a constant?

Close. It's sqrt(F1^2+....+Fn^2) - R
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Marek14 » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:06 am

Rob wrote:(x1) = x # circle.

But, how is the tiger, (22), circle x circle # circle? I don't get it.


Well, that can be explained by normals too: circle x circle is a 2D shape in four dimensions, so at every point, it has normal 2D plane (based on old mathematical equality 2+2=4 :D). I did not check this, but I think that this plane is determined by normal vectors of both circles at the point. And it's this plane where you put the circle.

Otherwise, I agree that tiger looks a bit weird when written like spheration. Personally, I consider spheration a proper subset of parenthesis notation, where the outermost set of parentheses contains at most one non-1 figure.
Marek14
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

Postby Keiji » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:14 am

bo198214 wrote:
The equation for the tiger is:
(sqrt(x^2+y^2) - r1)^2 + (sqrt(z^2+w^2) - r2)^2 < r3 ^2

Rob, cant you make a slicing sequence for the tiger (in a new thread)?


I'll post them in the "slicing toratopes with hyperplanes" thread.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby PWrong » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:35 am

I can't remember if I've noticed this before, but I've found a nice way to group toratopes together. I group them by the number of levels of nested brackets. I've also put the product notation for each shape. Maybe this will help us find a rule for converting RNS to product notation.

I occasionally use brackets in the product notation, because # and x aren't associative. (2x2)#2 is the tiger, while 2x(2#2) is circle x torus (which is a 5D shape)


4D: 1 + 4 + 4 + 1 = 10
1111 = 1x1x1x1

211 = 2x1x1
22 = 2x2
31 = 3x1
4 = 4

(21)1 = (2#2)x1
(211) = 3#2
(22) = (2x2)#2
(31) = 2#3

((21)1) = 2#2#2

5D: 1 + 6 + 10 + 6 + 1 = 24

11111 = 1x1x1x1x1

2111 =2x1x1x1
221 = 2x2x1
311 = 3x1x1
32 = 3x2
41 = 4x1
5 = 5

(21)11 = (2#2) x1x1
(211)1 = (3#2) x1
(2111) = 4#2
(22)1 = ((2x2)#2) x1
(21)2 = (2#2)x2
(221) = ?
(31)1 = 2#3 x1
(311) = 3#3
(32) = (3x2)#2 ?
(41) = 2#4

((21)1)1 = 2#2#2 x1
((21)11) = (3#2)#2
((211)1) = ?
((22)1) = ((2x2)#2)#2 ?
((21)2) = ?
((31)1) = ((2#2)#3) ?

(((21)1)1) = 2#2#2#2

Can anyone fill in or correct the question marks?
Last edited by PWrong on Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby moonlord » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:04 am

One should note that X (X>1) is the same with (111..1) - X times.

So 11 is the square, (11) = 2 is the disk; 111 is the cube, (111) is the sphere, (11)1 is the cylinder, ((11)1) is the torus. Although I fail to see the transformation...
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby Keiji » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:28 am

(221) = 2#(2x2)

((211)1) = 2#(3#2)

^ using my "theory" that (x1) = 2#x, given that x != 1
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby PWrong » Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:05 pm

Then I would introduce the brackets [] for rectangular compositions and the parentheses () for spherical composition.

We used to use square brackets for RNS. They turned out to be redundant.

Otherwise the notation is ambigous.

We can directly convert RNS to cartesian equations, so it's definately not ambiguous. The only problem we have is converting RNS to product notation. The last thing we need is an entirely new notation.


(221) = 2#(2x2)
((211)1) = 2#(3#2)

That's no good. I've said before that A#B only exists if B is a sphere.

EDIT: I just realised I made the same mistake a couple of times above. I've fixed them now.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Keiji » Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:34 pm

PWrong wrote:
(221) = 2#(2x2)
((211)1) = 2#(3#2)

That's no good. I've said before that A#B only exists if B is a sphere.

EDIT: I just realised I made the same mistake a couple of times above. I've fixed them now.


Then, (2x2)#2 and (3#2)#2 instead...
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby Marek14 » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:44 pm

PWrong (with Marek14's edits) wrote:
(221) = (2x2)#3
(32) = (3x2)#2 ? Yes
((211)1) = (2#3)#2
((22)1) = ((2x2)#2)#2 ? Yes
((21)2) = (2#2)#3
((31)1) = ((2#2)#3) ? Nope, (3#2)#2



Although something seems fishy here... what direction do you define spheration in? You have (31)1 as 2#3 x1, while it should be 3#2 x1, AFAIK

----

From Bo's post after the topic was split (I wish phpbb could split posts...) ~Rob

Bo wrote:
PWrong wrote:That's no good. I've said before that A#B only exists if B is a sphere.


Come on Paul! You defined # for arbitrary shapes. If I take the extremly simple example of 1#A in 3d, where A is some arbitrary figure in 2d, whats the problem of doing it?!
Marek14
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

Postby bo198214 » Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:42 pm

Ok, I agree with Robs assertion that
(A1) is equal to A # circle, for A being an RNS parametric function.

This is because for RNS parametric functions F it seems that F=eps, is all points of F=0 translated a bit along the normal space of F=0 (for eps some small constant). We have a natural 1 dimensional normal space in each point for those F. Even for non-smooth shapes like [11] that have in certain points no normal space we get by (F1) a natural definition of F # circle. Similarly we have then a natural definition for F # square by [F1].

This works also for arbitrary spheration, ie.
(A1...1) with d-times 1 is equal to A # S<sub>d</sub>. Even for d=0!

Any comments on this, or was this already known long before, or are there counterexamples?

And now as I think of it, the connection between parenthesis notation and # reveals as quite clear:
(A<sub>1</sub>....A<sub>n</sub>) is always equal to (A<sub>1</sub>x....x A<sub>n</sub>) # S<sub>n-1</sub>

For an example take the tiger, or even we can use a 2 dimensional example. Consider ((1)(1)) - where (1) is by (parametric) definition two points, i.e. the 0 dimensional sphere. The parametric equation is
sqrt((|x|-r1)^2 + (|x|-r2)^2) - r3 = 0
these are 4 circles with radius r3 at (r1,r2), (-r1,r2), (r1,-r2) and (-r1,-r2). But its product notation (S<sub>0</sub> x S<sub>0</sub>) # S<sub>1</sub> is exactly the same S<sub>0</sub> x S<sub>0</sub> are 4 points and each point is then replaced by a circle (in its normal space).

So I would guess the most general form
(A<sub>1</sub>....A<sub>n</sub>1...1) with d 1's is always equal to (A<sub>1</sub>x...xA<sub>n</sub>) # S<sub>n+d-1</sub>
Last edited by bo198214 on Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby Marek14 » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:42 pm

bo198214 wrote:Ok, I agree with Robs assertion that
(A1) is equal to A # circle, for A being an RNS parametric function.

This is because for RNS parametric functions F it seems that F=eps, is all points of F=0 translated a bit along the normal space of F=0 (for eps some small constant). We have a natural 1 dimensional normal space in each point for those F. Even for non-smooth shapes like [11] that have in certain points no normal space we get by (F1) a natural definition of F # circle. Similarly we have then a natural definition for F # square by [F1].

This works also for arbitrary spheration, ie.
(A1...1) with d-times 1 is equal to A # S<sub>d</sub>. Even for d=0!

Any comments on this, or was this already known long before, or are there counterexamples?


Well, I was using it like this from the beginning.
Marek14
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

Postby PWrong » Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:40 am

Rob wrote:
PWrong wrote:
(221) = 2#(2x2)
((211)1) = 2#(3#2)

That's no good. I've said before that A#B only exists if B is a sphere.

EDIT: I just realised I made the same mistake a couple of times above. I've fixed them now.


Then, (2x2)#2 and (3#2)#2 instead...


(2x2)#2 is the tiger.

Come on Paul! You defined # for arbitrary shapes. If I take the extremly simple example of 1#A in 3d, where A is some arbitrary figure in 2d, whats the problem of doing it?!

This is just a pair of A's. The orientation of each A is arbitrary. If A is a square, then 1#A could look like a pair of squares or a pair of diamonds, or a square and a diamond.

Maybe we should be trying to convert backwards, from product to RNS. That might be easier since the torus products are easier to visualise.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Keiji » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:54 am

PWrong wrote:
Rob wrote:
PWrong wrote:
(221) = 2#(2x2)
((211)1) = 2#(3#2)

That's no good. I've said before that A#B only exists if B is a sphere.

EDIT: I just realised I made the same mistake a couple of times above. I've fixed them now.


Then, (2x2)#2 and (3#2)#2 instead...


(2x2)#2 is the tiger.


That can't be right.

2x2 = duocylinder, 4D shape

4D shape # 2D shape = 5D shape

...?

The orientation of each A is arbitrary. If A is a square, then 1#A could look like a pair of squares or a pair of diamonds, or a square and a diamond.


In RNS, yes. However, CSG notation defines orientation.

So: EC<sub>0</sub>#EEC<sub>1</sub> would definately be a pair of monoframe squares. And EC<sub>0</sub>#EDC<sub>1</sub> would definately be a pair of monoframe squares rotated 45 degrees in xy.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby PWrong » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:08 am

That can't be right.

2x2 = duocylinder, 4D shape

4D shape # 2D shape = 5D shape

No, duocylinder is a 2D shape that exists in 4D space (just like a helix is a 1D shape in 3D space). It's normal space is (4-2) = 2D, which is enough room to spherate by a circle without increasing the dimension.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Keiji » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:10 am

Marek14 posted here how to properly convert RNS to product notation.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby PWrong » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:23 am

I noticed that, I just hadn't replied yet. I'll quote the whole thing here for reference.

Marek14 wrote:1. Parentheses evaluate from inside out.
2. Parentheses of form a1111... with b 1's evaluate to a#(b+1)
3. Other parentheses containing any 1's evaluate to a#(b+k) where a#b is evaluation of the same parentheses without 1's, and k is the number of 1's.
4. Parentheses containing terms a,b,c etc. with at least two terms and none of them equal to 1 evaluate to (a x b x c x ...)#n where n is the number of terms.


Now I'll look at them one by one.

2. Parentheses of form a1111... with b 1's evaluate to a#(b+1)

I agree with this one.
Example: (211) = 2#4, (3111) = 3#5

3. Other parentheses containing any 1's evaluate to a#(b+k) where a#b is evaluation of the same parentheses without 1's, and k is the number of 1's.

I think I understand this one. So (32) = (3x2)#2 implies (321111) = (3x2)#(2+4) = (3x2)#6, correct?

4. Parentheses containing terms a,b,c etc. with at least two terms and none of them equal to 1 evaluate to (a x b x c x ...)#n where n is the number of terms.

So this would mean that (4332) = (4x3x3x2)#4.

I like all these rules. The dimensions always match up, and they all seem to work for all the low dimensional shapes. I think you've solved the problem Marek :D.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby PWrong » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:34 am

I just realised Marek's rules don't solve the problem entirely. They don't help us convert ((21)2), for instance. Marek said it would be (2#2)#3. I disagree with this. If we substitute T = (21), then rule 4 gives us:
(T2) = (Tx2)#2
and since T = 2#2, we get
((21)2) = ((2#2)x2)#2
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Marek14 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:18 pm

PWrong wrote:I just realised Marek's rules don't solve the problem entirely. They don't help us convert ((21)2), for instance. Marek said it would be (2#2)#3. I disagree with this. If we substitute T = (21), then rule 4 gives us:
(T2) = (Tx2)#2
and since T = 2#2, we get
((21)2) = ((2#2)x2)#2


Ah - that was my mistake. You are correct.

EDIT: Actually, you use my rules to get the proper form - so the rules were right, I just made a mistake in their application.
Marek14
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

Postby bo198214 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:25 pm

PWrong wrote:I think you've solved the problem Marek :D.


I hate doing that, but for the records:
I have found the result same time with Marek.
And I am really pissed off by that kind of group dynamics.
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby PWrong » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:36 pm

EDIT: Actually, you use my rules to get the proper form - so the rules were right, I just made a mistake in their application.

True, but I had to assume that the rules apply to objects with more than two nested brackets.

I hate doing that, but for the records:
I have found the result same time with Marek.

Sorry Bo. I saw you said that, but I didn't understand the rest of your post. Congrats to you too.

And I am really pissed off by that kind of group dynamics.

What? :?
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby moonlord » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:39 pm

PWrong wrote:
And I am really pissed off by that kind of group dynamics.

What? :?


You know, the sheep effect...
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby PWrong » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:47 pm

I'm being a sheep because I agree with Marek? I just think the rules look valid. Hopefully someone can prove them and we'll know for sure.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Next

Return to Toratopes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests