[diagrams] diagrams status
fryguybob at gmail.com
Fri Aug 20 12:23:03 EDT 2010
Oops I forgot to reply all:
Hmm, interesting idea. Sort of like what we currently do to keep
> track of inverse transformations.
Right, in fact I realized recently that a lot of people run into a similar
issue when doing non-uniform transformations on 3D objects that that have
explicitly set normals. I searched around some and found  which uses the
transpose of the inverse of the transformation. I haven't had time to work
up any tests but we *could* get the transpose by converting to a matrix
(transform with each basis vector to get the matrix) and then transposing
that but it seems like it would be pretty ugly and I don't know if that
holds for higher than 3 dimensions.
> Here's a somewhat related idea I just had. Currently we represent
> bounding regions by a function which given a vector, tells you how far
> you have to go in that direction to reach an enclosing hyperplane
> (call this function h, for Hyperplane). Consider instead a function e
> (for Envelope) which given a vector, tells you how far you have to go
> in that direction to reach the edge of the bounding region itself.
e should be much easier to transform under any sort of transformation
> at all. But h is rather nice for other reasons (placing diagrams next
> to one another using e seems very difficult; using h it is a snap).
> However, given e (or e plus some extra information which is also easy
> to maintain under transformations) can we easily recover h? Perhaps
> using some sort of automatic differentiation? Essentially to compute
> h from e we are doing some sort of maximization I think.
So something like h v will be the maximum of e v and the dot product of v
with all inflection/first derivative undefined points? I'll have to think
P.S. I think I'm going to be going to the Haskell Symposium. Anyone else
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the diagrams