To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Angles between flats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of angles between lines (in the plane or in space), between two planes (dihedral angle) or between a line and a plane can be generalized to arbitrary dimensions. This generalization was first discussed by Camille Jordan.[1] For any pair of flats in a Euclidean space of arbitrary dimension one can define a set of mutual angles which are invariant under isometric transformation of the Euclidean space. If the flats do not intersect, their shortest distance is one more invariant.[1] These angles are called canonical[2] or principal.[3] The concept of angles can be generalized to pairs of flats in a finite-dimensional inner product space over the complex numbers.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    6 333 010
    44 962
    154 287
    1 503
    20 688
  • Why is the Solar System Flat?
  • Flat Earth & the Fisheye Lens ▶️️
  • The Planets Lie: Fallen Angels Deception from our Enclosed Flat Earth
  • 24/7 Flat Earth LIVE! 🔴 100% Proof NASA Lies & Earth is Not a Globe 🌍 Not Flat Earth Society
  • Globe Debunked - Great Flat Lake Test

Transcription

Our sun and the earth, and all the planets and moons and dwarf planets and asteroids and comets... The Solar System in short formed about 4.6 billion years ago from a nebulous cloud of swirling gas and dust which coalesced thanks to the irresistibly attractive force of gravity. of swirling gas and dust which coalesced thanks to the irresistibly attractive force of gravity. However, theis nebula started off more or less as a big shapeless blob So how did our solar system end up with all the planets and their moons orbiting in a flat disk? I mean, we've all seen the planetary model of the atom, which is definitely wrong when applied to atoms but it also kind of suggests that planets might revolve around the sun every which way. So is our solar system somehow special in its flatness? Or is the planetary model of the atom doubly wrong? Well, our solar system definitely isn't alone, many exoplanets' star systems are flat, a lot of galaxies are flat, black hole accretion disks are flat, Saturn's rings are flat, etc. So why, when there's all of 3D space to fill, does the universe have this preference for flatness? The answer has to do with two things? collisions and the fact that we live in three dimensions. Bear with me. Anytime a bunch of objects held together by gravity are zooming and circling around their individual paths are nearly impossible to predict, and yet, collected together they have a single total amount that they spin about their center of mass. It may be hard to figure out exactly what direction that rotation is in but the mathematics implies there must be some plane in which the cloud -taken as a whole- spins. Now, in two dimensions a cloud of particles rotating in a plane is flat by definition, it's in two dimensions. But in three dimensions, even though the rotation of the cloud is given by one plane, particles can whiz around far up and down from that plane. As the particles bump into each other, all the up and down motion tends to cancel out. It's energy lost in crashing and clumping. Yet the whole mass must continue spinning inexorably, because in our universe, the total amount of spinning in any isolated system always stays the same. So over time through collisions and crashes, the cloud loses its loft and flattens into a spinning, roughly 2 dimensional disk shape, like a solar system or a spiral galaxy. However, in 4 spacial dimensions, the math works out such that there can be two separate and complementary planes of rotation which is both really really hard for our 3D-thinking brains to picture and also means there's no up and down direction in which particles lose energy by collisions. So a cloud of particles can continue being just that... a cloud. And thus, only in three dimensions can a nebula or infant galaxy start out not flat and end up flat which is definitely a good thing because we need all that matter to clump together in order for stars and planets to form, and for us, -even those of us who think atoms look like this- to exist.

Jordan's definition

Let and be flats of dimensions and in the -dimensional Euclidean space . By definition, a translation of or does not alter their mutual angles. If and do not intersect, they will do so upon any translation of which maps some point in to some point in . It can therefore be assumed without loss of generality that and intersect.

Jordan shows that Cartesian coordinates in can then be defined such that and are described, respectively, by the sets of equations

and

with . Jordan calls these coordinates canonical. By definition, the angles are the angles between and .

The non-negative integers are constrained by

For these equations to determine the five non-negative integers completely, besides the dimensions and and the number of angles , the non-negative integer must be given. This is the number of coordinates , whose corresponding axes are those lying entirely within both and . The integer is thus the dimension of . The set of angles may be supplemented with angles to indicate that has that dimension.

Jordan's proof applies essentially unaltered when is replaced with the -dimensional inner product space over the complex numbers. (For angles between subspaces, the generalization to is discussed by Galántai and Hegedũs in terms of the below variational characterization.[4])[1]

Angles between subspaces

Now let and be subspaces of the -dimensional inner product space over the real or complex numbers. Geometrically, and are flats, so Jordan's definition of mutual angles applies. When for any canonical coordinate the symbol denotes the unit vector of the axis, the vectors form an orthonormal basis for and the vectors form an orthonormal basis for , where

Being related to canonical coordinates, these basic vectors may be called canonical.

When denote the canonical basic vectors for and the canonical basic vectors for then the inner product vanishes for any pair of and except the following ones.

With the above ordering of the basic vectors, the matrix of the inner products is thus diagonal. In other words, if and are arbitrary orthonormal bases in and then the real, orthogonal or unitary transformations from the basis to the basis and from the basis to the basis realize a singular value decomposition of the matrix of inner products . The diagonal matrix elements are the singular values of the latter matrix. By the uniqueness of the singular value decomposition, the vectors are then unique up to a real, orthogonal or unitary transformation among them, and the vectors and (and hence ) are unique up to equal real, orthogonal or unitary transformations applied simultaneously to the sets of the vectors associated with a common value of and to the corresponding sets of vectors (and hence to the corresponding sets of ).

A singular value can be interpreted as corresponding to the angles introduced above and associated with and a singular value can be interpreted as corresponding to right angles between the orthogonal spaces and , where superscript denotes the orthogonal complement.

Variational characterization

The variational characterization of singular values and vectors implies as a special case a variational characterization of the angles between subspaces and their associated canonical vectors. This characterization includes the angles and introduced above and orders the angles by increasing value. It can be given the form of the below alternative definition. In this context, it is customary to talk of principal angles and vectors.[3]

Definition

Let be an inner product space. Given two subspaces with , there exists then a sequence of angles called the principal angles, the first one defined as

where is the inner product and the induced norm. The vectors and are the corresponding principal vectors.

The other principal angles and vectors are then defined recursively via

This means that the principal angles form a set of minimized angles between the two subspaces, and the principal vectors in each subspace are orthogonal to each other.

Examples

Geometric example

Geometrically, subspaces are flats (points, lines, planes etc.) that include the origin, thus any two subspaces intersect at least in the origin. Two two-dimensional subspaces and generate a set of two angles. In a three-dimensional Euclidean space, the subspaces and are either identical, or their intersection forms a line. In the former case, both . In the latter case, only , where vectors and are on the line of the intersection and have the same direction. The angle will be the angle between the subspaces and in the orthogonal complement to . Imagining the angle between two planes in 3D, one intuitively thinks of the largest angle, .

Algebraic example

In 4-dimensional real coordinate space R4, let the two-dimensional subspace be spanned by and , and let the two-dimensional subspace be spanned by and with some real and such that . Then and are, in fact, the pair of principal vectors corresponding to the angle with , and and are the principal vectors corresponding to the angle with

To construct a pair of subspaces with any given set of angles in a (or larger) dimensional Euclidean space, take a subspace with an orthonormal basis and complete it to an orthonormal basis of the Euclidean space, where . Then, an orthonormal basis of the other subspace is, e.g.,

Basic properties

  • If the largest angle is zero, one subspace is a subset of the other.
  • If the largest angle is , there is at least one vector in one subspace perpendicular to the other subspace.
  • If the smallest angle is zero, the subspaces intersect at least in a line.
  • If the smallest angle is , the subspaces are orthogonal.
  • The number of angles equal to zero is the dimension of the space where the two subspaces intersect.

Advanced properties

  • Non-trivial (different from and [5]) angles between two subspaces are the same as the non-trivial angles between their orthogonal complements.[6][7]
  • Non-trivial angles between the subspaces and and the corresponding non-trivial angles between the subspaces and sum up to .[6][7]
  • The angles between subspaces satisfy the triangle inequality in terms of majorization and thus can be used to define a distance on the set of all subspaces turning the set into a metric space.[8]
  • The sine of the angles between subspaces satisfy the triangle inequality in terms of majorization and thus can be used to define a distance on the set of all subspaces turning the set into a metric space.[6] For example, the sine of the largest angle is known as a gap between subspaces.[9]

Extensions

The notion of the angles and some of the variational properties can be naturally extended to arbitrary inner products[10] and subspaces with infinite dimensions.[7]

Computation

Historically, the principal angles and vectors first appear in the context of canonical correlation and were  originally computed using SVD of corresponding covariance matrices. However, as first noticed in,[3] the canonical correlation is related to the cosine of the principal angles, which is ill-conditioned for small angles, leading to very inaccurate computation of highly correlated principal vectors in finite precision computer arithmetic. The sine-based algorithm[3] fixes this issue, but creates a new problem of very inaccurate computation of highly uncorrelated principal vectors, since the sine function is ill-conditioned for angles close to π/2. To produce accurate principal vectors in computer arithmetic for the full range of the principal angles, the combined technique[10] first compute all principal angles and vectors using the classical cosine-based approach, and then recomputes the principal angles smaller than π/4 and the corresponding principal vectors using the sine-based approach.[3] The combined technique[10] is implemented in open-source libraries Octave[11] and SciPy[12] and contributed [13] and [14] to MATLAB.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Jordan, C. (1875). "Essai sur la géométrie à  dimensions". Bull. Soc. Math. France. 3: 103.
  2. ^ Afriat, S. N. (1957). "Orthogonal and oblique projectors and the characterization of pairs of vector spaces". Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 53 (4): 800. doi:10.1017/S0305004100032916. S2CID 122049149.
  3. ^ a b c d e Björck, Å.; Golub, G. H. (1973). "Numerical Methods for Computing Angles Between Linear Subspaces". Math. Comp. 27 (123): 579. doi:10.2307/2005662. JSTOR 2005662.
  4. ^ Galántai, A.; Hegedũs, Cs. J. (2006). "Jordan's principal angles in complex vector spaces". Numer. Linear Algebra Appl. 13 (7): 589–598. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.329.7525. doi:10.1002/nla.491. S2CID 13107400.
  5. ^ Halmos, P.R. (1969), "Two subspaces", Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 144: 381–389, doi:10.1090/S0002-9947-1969-0251519-5
  6. ^ a b c Knyazev, A.V.; Argentati, M.E. (2006), "Majorization for Changes in Angles Between Subspaces, Ritz Values, and Graph Laplacian Spectra", SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 29 (1): 15–32, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.331.9770, doi:10.1137/060649070, S2CID 16987402
  7. ^ a b c Knyazev, A.V.; Jujunashvili, A.; Argentati, M.E. (2010), "Angles between infinite dimensional subspaces with applications to the Rayleigh–Ritz and alternating projectors methods", Journal of Functional Analysis, 259 (6): 1323–1345, arXiv:0705.1023, doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2010.05.018, S2CID 5570062
  8. ^ Qiu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, C.-K. (2005), "Unitarily invariant metrics on the Grassmann space" (PDF), SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 27 (2): 507–531, doi:10.1137/040607605
  9. ^ Kato, D.T. (1996), Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, Springer, New York
  10. ^ a b c Knyazev, A.V.; Argentati, M.E. (2002), "Principal Angles between Subspaces in an A-Based Scalar Product: Algorithms and Perturbation Estimates", SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 23 (6): 2009–2041, Bibcode:2002SJSC...23.2008K, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.73.2914, doi:10.1137/S1064827500377332
  11. ^ Octave function subspace
  12. ^ SciPy linear-algebra function subspace_angles
  13. ^ MATLAB FileExchange function subspace
  14. ^ MATLAB FileExchange function subspacea
This page was last edited on 17 December 2023, at 06:39
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.