Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
A Gentle Introduction to Projective Geometry, Part 1.

By i in Science
Tue May 27, 2003 at 04:29:56 PM EST
Tags: Science (all tags)
Science

It is assumed that the reader is somewhat familiar with Euclidean geometry and basic matrix and vector algebra.

In this installment we will introduce the basic concepts of projective geometry. In the next part will take a brief look at projective transforms.


Euclidean geometry is a very good mathematical framework for describing various properties of shapes and motions. Except it's got an exceptional case at its very foundation -- parallel lines, and when we move up to 3D, planes. Parallel lines don't intersect, while any other pair of (different) lines intersect at exactly one point. Of course, being lazy as we are, we hate handling exceptional cases.

Well, it turns out that we can get rid of parallelism and still obtain quite usable geometry.

We won't be giving axiomatic definitions here. Instead we will state some of the properties of projective planes and projective spaces. Some of the properties are axioms and some are theorems. It is not important to us which is which.

Plane properties

  1. For any two distinct points, there is exactly one line that passes through both of them.
  2. For any two distinct lines, there is exactly one point that is common to both of them.
  3. There exist at least three points, not all lying on the same line.
  4. There exist at least three lines, not all passing through the same point.
  5. Every line contains at least three points.
  6. Every point lies on at least three lines.
Any object that satisfies these properties is called a projective plane.

If you're bright enough (of course you are), you have already noticed some kind of symmetry here. Odd-numbered properties can be obtained from even-numbered properties if we replace the word "point" by the word "line" and vice versa, and also replace phrases like "point lies on line" with "line passes through point" and vice versa. This is a very handy property of projective planes. It's official name is duality. Duality means that for every theorem we can automatically obtain another theorem, called its dual, by exchanging points with lines and vice versa.

In order to simplify things even further, instead of saying "point lies on line" or "line passes through point", we will say "point and line coincide ". This phrase is symmetric w.r.t. points and lines, which makes turning a proposition into its dual a completely automatic process.

Why is this useful? It turns out that if we arbitrarily choose a single line (together with all the points that coincide with it) and call it "line at infinity" or "ideal line" and just throw it away, the rest of the projective plane turns into our familiar Euclidean plane. That is, any two lines that were intersecting at ideal line no longer intersect and become "parallel lines", and all axioms of Euclidean geometry hold.

Conversely, if we take an Euclidean plane and complement it with an object called "ideal line", and postulate that any family of parallel lines have their "intersection point" lying at the ideal line, we will get a projective plane. By the way, points on ideal line are called ideal points.

We will go by this route when deriving a coordinate representation of projective geometry. But first, a few words on projective space.

Space properties

  1. Three points not all coincident with the same line are coincident with a unique plane.
  2. Three planes not all coincident with the same line are coincident with a unique point.
  3. For a line and a plane not coincident with it, there's exactly one point that is coincident with both.
  4. For a line and a point not coincident with it, there's exactly one plane that is coincident with both.
  5. Two distinct planes are coincident with exactly one common line.
  6. Two distinct points are coincident with exactly one common line.
There are more properties akin to properties 5 and 6 of projective plane, but we'll not discuss them here.

Again, we can see that there's a symmetry between odd-numbered and even-numbered properties (we've made it apparent by talking about coincidence right from the start). The difference is that now points are dual with planes, not lines. You can guess what will happen if we move forward to higher dimensions.

In addition, there's a property of projective spaces which says that every plane is a projective plane, in the sense already defined.

Needless to say, a trick similar to that of ideal line will move us back and forth between projective space and Euclidian space, only now we introduce an ideal plane instead of ideal line.

Homogenous co-ordinates.

A point on plane is represented by a pair of co-ordinates (x, y). Let's add a third co-ordinate at the end. We postulate that

  • (x, y, 1) represents the same point as the pair (x, y);
  • (X, Y, Z) represents the same point as (αX, αY; αZ) for any scalar α
  • (0, 0, 0) is not allowed.
To arrive from homogenous co-ordinates back to Euclidean, we simply divide by the third co-ordinate: (x, y) = (X/Z, Y/Z). It is immediately clear that there are more "points" than the Euclidean plane has : (X, Y, 0) maps to nothing because we can't divide by zero! Not-so-amazingly, it turns out that such triples precisely correspond to ideal points of projective plane.

What does this buy us? Let's see how we would represent lines. We start with the familliar equation for a line in Euclidean plane:

ax + by + c = 0

Noting that this equation is not affected by scale, we arrive to

aX + bY + cZ = 0, or

uTp = pTu = 0

where u = [a, b, c]T is the line and p = [X, Y, Z]T is a point on the line. Surprise: points and lines have the same representation in homogenous co-ordinates! No wonder, because they are dual concepts. It is easy to derive a formula for intersection point of two lines: p = u1 × u2, and for a line that passes through two points: u = p1 × p2. Again, thanks to duality, the two formulas are identical. More fun with formulas: three points lie on the same line if det[p1 p2 p3] = 0. How would you determine whether three lines all go through the same point?

In three dimensions we will of course have 4-tuples for points and planes.

Now what?

You might wonder, what parallels (pardon the pun) in the real world these highly abstract concepts may have? Yet many people can see an ideal line with their naked eyes, without even realising it. You can too, if you live on a vast plain or near sea shore. Yes, it's the horizon.

Of course, railroad tracks or edges of a highway don't really intersect, but we perceive them intersecting at the horizon. That's because the world around us undergoes projective transform in our eyes. Photographs of tall buildings often exhibit the same phenomenon. If you take one and continue images of a bunch of lines that ought to be parallel in the real life, you will see that they all intersect at the same point. Another bunch of parallel lines will intersect at another point. All these points lie on a straight line -- the horizon. The horizon is the image of the ideal line in our eyes or on a film.

In the next part we will take closer look at projective transforms.

End of part 1.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Should this article have a poll?
o Yes. 49%
o No. 50%

Votes: 63
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Euclidean
o geometry
o basic
o matrix
o vector
o algebra
o Also by i


Display: Sort:
A Gentle Introduction to Projective Geometry, Part 1. | 135 comments (71 topical, 64 editorial, 1 hidden)
complete crap (1.34 / 35) (#17)
by turmeric on Mon May 26, 2003 at 11:26:38 AM EST

dear math jerks,

before posting any more 'articles' i would ask that you spend a year or two without reading any math gobbldycrack or any journals or papers or anything. during this time you will start to remember how to speak a little langauge known as 'english'. after this perhaps you have a chance of communicating with other human beings instead of robotic professors who hate their jobs.

also, as a special note to this particular artciel author, projection geometry does not require vectors, it does not require matrices, and it sure as hell does not require complicated words. it might require basic euclidean geometry but nowhere near the amount of crap you seem to think it does.



one "application" (4.70 / 10) (#25)
by BlueOregon on Mon May 26, 2003 at 01:35:15 PM EST

One of my favorites, at least, and simple as well.

Suppose you're doing a perspective drawing, and say you want the floor of a room in the drawing to be tiled with regular geometic shapes - a square or hexagon, for example. Obviously if your perspective were from "above" it would be the same as drawing a regular square or hexagon on on paper, but that's likely not the case. How to go about this? You could simply guess ... try to make it "look right" by experiment. You could use an actual floor or what not as a model, but you'd have to get the angles right. Or you could, like many Renaissance artists, use a variety of tools to draw something that already exists.

Or you could use projective geometry to get it right. For example, given any four non-colinear points you can create a "projective regular hexagon" ... and once you have one you can tile the whole "plane."

It's great for anyone doing perspective drawings. A compass is neither needed nor useful since projective geometry doesn't preserve angles, only relationships between points and lines. A straight-edge, however, is needed.

Interesting approach (4.80 / 10) (#42)
by Kalani on Mon May 26, 2003 at 04:28:10 PM EST

I think I should preface my comment by saying that it's easy for people to sit back and criticize articles without going to the trouble to write an article themselves. I thought your article was pretty clear about most things and it got to some of the nice aesthetic qualities of projective geometry quickly.

However, I think that if I was aiming at the general k5 audience I'd write an article on projective geometry a little differently.

You essentially have one sentence that covers the controversy over Euclid's parallel postulate, the failed efforts to derive it from the other axioms, the fact that Gauss felt he had to hide his work on non-Euclidian geometry to escape the vitriol of his fellow mathematicians and so on. I think you'd get the average reader to care more if you covered all of this stuff (or summarized it and linked to a more detailed historical account of some sort), because otherwise the average reader might not even care to question it. I suppose that might upset some people, and I'll get some replies saying spiteful things like that we shouldn't try to cater to "idiots", but I think it's obvious that in most cases it's a problem of people simply not knowing about the aesthetic principles and such that make it obvious.

Also, I think that it would help people to bring the coming examples into the very first submission. The projection transformation is easy to grasp in an intuitive way, and a few diagrams would make most of the other equations obvious. Obviously generalized projection is more complex than the simple case of projecting polygons onto a plane, but I think it provides people with an easy springboard to jump up to the more generalized operation of projection (plus it's a natural way to introduce things like properties of objects that are invariant under projection and so on).

The line/point duality treatment was great. It was the perfect introduction for homogenous coordinates I think.

Anyway, it looks like this could be an interesting series of articles.

-----
"I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement; in the end the machinery will be revealed
Mathematics isn't science (1.22 / 22) (#44)
by BankofNigeria ATM on Mon May 26, 2003 at 04:49:06 PM EST

It's a language.

1. S 2. V 3. PREP 4. V 5. N 6. PRO 7. N 8. PREP 9. V 10. V 11. V 12. PRO 13. PRO 14. V 15. N 16. V 17. PREP 18. ADV 19. N 20. ADV

I assume you are familiar (2.25 / 3) (#50)
by knott art on Mon May 26, 2003 at 05:23:11 PM EST

with the works of George Bruce Halsted?
Knott Art
Plane properties, the first. (4.00 / 7) (#52)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon May 26, 2003 at 05:30:39 PM EST

I worked this particular little rule out when I was playing with two Frisbees in primary school, and was struck with the belief this was absolutely the most amazing thought that anyone had ever had. I went on very quickly to 'realise' that any three points on a plane make a triangle.

Not that that is a partiular big deal now, or especially relevent to the article. I just wanted to share.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell

Maybe I'm just stupid... (3.62 / 8) (#55)
by Kasreyn on Mon May 26, 2003 at 06:46:25 PM EST

"For any two distinct lines, there is exactly one point that is common to both of them."

...but what if the lines are parallel? Or are parallel lines not possible in a "projective" plane, whateverthefuck that is?

[waits patiently for someone to showoffishly explain how stupid he is]


-Kasreyn

P.S. Abstaining due to having forgotten all my math beyond basic trig. =\


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
-1 TP (1.02 / 48) (#65)
by BankofNigeria ATM on Mon May 26, 2003 at 08:17:54 PM EST

I printed out a copy of this and wiped my ass on it. This article sucks, no one cares about math. Therefore, -1 Toilet Paper.

1. S 2. V 3. PREP 4. V 5. N 6. PRO 7. N 8. PREP 9. V 10. V 11. V 12. PRO 13. PRO 14. V 15. N 16. V 17. PREP 18. ADV 19. N 20. ADV

don't have enough (2.25 / 4) (#69)
by freya on Mon May 26, 2003 at 09:59:46 PM EST

focus right now to read this, will read later. interesting topic

Nice little geometry problem (5.00 / 4) (#71)
by flo on Tue May 27, 2003 at 12:36:50 AM EST

Here's a nice problem, that becomes even more fun once you understand the projective plane and duality between points and lines.

Consider a set S of points in the plane (projective or Euclidian). We say S is complete if it has the following property. Draw all the lines which coincide with pairs of distinct points in S (these are called connecting lines). Then every pair of distinct connecting lines intersect at a point that is already in S.

Examples of complete sets are:
  1. The whole plane (projective or Euclidian)
  2. The empty set
  3. Sets containing 1, 2 or 3 points
  4. Any set of points which all lie on a single line
  5. Any set of points such that all but one of the points lie on a single line (e.g. the vertices of a triangle).
  6. A set of 5 points, consisting of the vertices of a parallelogram and its center.
By now you should get the idea. Sets of the form (1)-(5) are complete in both the projective and Euclidian planes. Also, examples (3) and (4) are special cases of (5). A set of the form (6) is only complete in the Euclidian plane. This is because in the projective plane, a pair of "parallel" lines which form opposite sides of the parallelogram meet in the ideal line (I see the author has wisely avoided the term "line at infinity"), but this point on the ideal line was not part of the original set.

Now for the problem: Prove that every finite complete set is of the form (2), (5) or (6) above.

Now for a somewhat harder problem. A set of points S is said to be dense in the plane (projective or Euclidian), if every circle of non-zero radius, no matter where or how small, contains points of S. In other words, a set is dense if printing it would give you a completely black page, no matter at what resolution. Homework: show that every complete set which is not of the form (2), (5) or (6) above is dense.

One last meta-problem: generalize this to three dimensional (or n-dimensional) spaces.
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
-1 (1.14 / 21) (#79)
by ragman on Tue May 27, 2003 at 10:52:16 AM EST

Math is for nerds and computers.

+1 to section page (5.00 / 3) (#82)
by djeaux on Tue May 27, 2003 at 12:34:33 PM EST

It is assumed that the reader is somewhat familiar with Euclidean geometry and basic matrix and vector algebra.
That's probably a bit too stiff a set of prerequesites for the average K5 reader...

djeaux
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray." (Bob Dylan)

This article better not make it to the front page (1.75 / 8) (#84)
by cux on Tue May 27, 2003 at 12:55:20 PM EST

it will only encourage them.

-
"Chaos, Mr. Who," Lupus Yonderboy said. "That is our mode and modus. That is our central kick."
-1 Resection (1.05 / 17) (#87)
by debacle on Tue May 27, 2003 at 01:12:12 PM EST

This belongs under "Technical Circle-Jerk."

It tastes sweet.
oh my god (4.00 / 5) (#98)
by the sixth replicant on Tue May 27, 2003 at 07:50:02 PM EST

I did my PhD thesis in finite projective geomery. Jesus, I thought this stuff was out of bounds for a public forum. But, no, I'm wrong. Could I use my powers for good?

Ummm

Ciao

Matroid Theory (4.50 / 2) (#113)
by unshaven on Wed May 28, 2003 at 03:46:35 PM EST

Wow, it's quite interesting to see this up here, especially since I got into mathematics because of a finite projective geometry course.  Good article, looking forward to the next.

And, anyone who finds this fun can also look into matroid theory, which is more general (all finite projective geometries are matroids, but not the other way around).  It focuses on generalizing the idea of linear independence and the combinatorics thereof.  It's good stuff, especially oriented matroids.
______________
"I think we found a way to put the fun back in sin." -- Sleater-Kinney

We know what is projective geometry (none / 0) (#127)
by United Fools on Thu May 29, 2003 at 11:56:35 PM EST

If you have a tree that's 1 meter tall, and its shadow is 0.5 meter long, than another tree 2 meters tall will have a shadow 1 meter long. That sums it up :-)
We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
Walk me through this.... (none / 0) (#129)
by BlaisePascal on Fri May 30, 2003 at 04:03:06 PM EST

You assert that the projective plane is equivalent to a Euclidian plane where some arbitrarily chosen line is declared to be the "ideal line", where "parallel" lines intersect.  I'd like to use that idea to create a projective lattice on a Euclidian plane -- as if I was trying to tile an infinite plane with squares and look at it from above, parallel to the plane.  Standard stuff for projective/perspective drawing.

So...  I'm going to arbitrarily define the line y=100 as my "ideal line", and assume that a=(-1,0), b=(0,0), c=(1,0) and d=(0,1) are points on the lattice.  All other points should be able to be determined by intersections of "parallel" lines -- I will not declare, for instance, that a bunch of lattice points are on the y=1 line unless I can actually construct the y=1 line from at least two points otherwise identified.  I am also going to assume that lines of the form x=a (in the projective plane) converge at e=(0,100).

Immediately I can draw lines a-e, b-e, c-e, and d-e (coincident with b-e).  These lines are parallel, since the intersect at a common point on the ideal line.  Also, they determine one coordinate of three columns of projected lattice points.

I can also draw lines a-d and c-d, which intersect c-e and a-e at f and g, respectively.  a-d and c-d correspond to the diagonals across the lattice, and so should contain all points of the form (x-1,x) and (x,1-x) (both Euclidian and projective).  They are not parallel, but perpendicular.  f and g, then should be points (1,2) and (-1,2) (projective).  I'll draw a line through them, which should be parallel (in a Euclidian sense) to a-c.  It also establishes h (projective point (0,2) at the intersection of f-g and b-e.

a-d should intersect the ideal line at i=(99,100), and c-d should intersect the idea j=(-99,100).  This means that any line parallel to a-d or c-d should also intersect at those points.  So...  Let's add a few more parallels here.....  h-i intersects a-e (at projected k=(-1,1)), a-c (at projected l=(-2,0)), and c-e (at projected m=(1,3)). h-j hits the same three lines at projected n=(-1,3), o=(1,1), and p=(2,0). n-m gives us another horizontal for projected y=3, and we can finally draw l-o to get us the projected y=1 line.

This is where things start to get iffy...  Assuming this was done correctly, l-o should pass through d.  Right?

A Gentle Introduction to Projective Geometry, Part 1. | 135 comments (71 topical, 64 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!