Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Question about general equation for a line in 3d [modified]

Question about general equation for a line in 3d [modified]

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
questionphpcsscomlounge
17 Posts 10 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • G GAMerritt

    Someone was asking about that a while back: Why is there no scalar equation for a line in three dimensions ? http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165472[^] I think the R-difference (from R3 to R1) in dimensionality accounts for it. That's why there's no form analogous to Ax + By + C that includes a z-coefficient. Any ideas ? The only equation that might come close to fitting the bill is this one: Ax2 + Bxy + Cy2 + Dx + Ey + F = 0 If B2 - 4AC is zero this equation might represent a line, or two lines if less than zero. But this requires a section by a plane of a conic surface; and although it's a scalar equation, it still isn't linear; so I don't think it's suitable.

    modified on Monday, March 14, 2011 5:09 PM

    L Offline
    L Offline
    Luc Pattyn
    wrote on last edited by
    #6

    In 2D a line could be represented as Ax+By+C=0; this merely is a single constraint, reducing the 2D space to a one-dimensional collection of points. Similarly in 3D a plane could be Ax+By+Cz+D=0, and a line would be the intersection of two planes (it takes two constraints to reduce a 3D space to a one-dimensional object). Another approach is using a parameter, say t. Then a line would be the combination of: x=At+B, and y=Ct+D, and z=Et+F (take as many as you need for an N-dimensional space). One can think of t as time, and the point traveling along the intended line over time. :)

    Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum

    Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • A AspDotNetDev

      So, a 3D version of y = mx + b?

      y = mx + Mz + b

      Note that m and M are just constants that may not have the same meaning as m in the original equation. Also note that I didn't understand a word you said, so I could be completely off base.

      [WikiLeaks Cablegate Cables]

      L Offline
      L Offline
      Luc Pattyn
      wrote on last edited by
      #7

      Nope, that would be a plane, as for every pair (x,z) you get a y-value. :)

      Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum

      Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • D DaveAuld

        whoooooooosh![^] [sound of that rapidly flying right over my head, in case youtube not working for you!]

        Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn


        Folding Stats: Team CodeProject

        L Offline
        L Offline
        Luc Pattyn
        wrote on last edited by
        #8

        landing gear inspection? :)

        Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum

        Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.

        D 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • L Luc Pattyn

          landing gear inspection? :)

          Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum

          Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.

          D Offline
          D Offline
          DaveAuld
          wrote on last edited by
          #9

          so thats not the plane he's on about travelling from point a to b to c then.......... :rolleyes:

          Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn


          Folding Stats: Team CodeProject

          L 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • D DaveAuld

            so thats not the plane he's on about travelling from point a to b to c then.......... :rolleyes:

            Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn


            Folding Stats: Team CodeProject

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Luc Pattyn
            wrote on last edited by
            #10

            No, mathematical planes are infinite; maybe slower than yours, but a lot bigger. :)

            Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum

            Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • G GAMerritt

              Someone was asking about that a while back: Why is there no scalar equation for a line in three dimensions ? http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165472[^] I think the R-difference (from R3 to R1) in dimensionality accounts for it. That's why there's no form analogous to Ax + By + C that includes a z-coefficient. Any ideas ? The only equation that might come close to fitting the bill is this one: Ax2 + Bxy + Cy2 + Dx + Ey + F = 0 If B2 - 4AC is zero this equation might represent a line, or two lines if less than zero. But this requires a section by a plane of a conic surface; and although it's a scalar equation, it still isn't linear; so I don't think it's suitable.

              modified on Monday, March 14, 2011 5:09 PM

              I Offline
              I Offline
              Iain Clarke Warrior Programmer
              wrote on last edited by
              #11

              GAMerritt wrote:

              Why is there no scalar equation for a line in three dimensions ?

              I'm thinking you have the question back to front. Let's pretend a 1D universe. Then you have this equation:

              ax = d

              aka, in a 1D world, a scalar equation defines a point, or 0D object. In a 2D universe, you get this equation:

              ax + by = d

              aka, in a 2D world, a scalar equation defines a line, or 1D object. In a 3D universe, you get this equation:

              ax + by + cz= d

              aka, in a 3D world, a scalar equation defines a plane, or 2D object. To extrapolate... Σ(1->n) coeff [n] * axis [n] = d give an n-1 dimensional object. We just happen to have names for the previous things. I have no idea what you'd call a 3d scalar object in a 4d world. A hyper-plane? I hope that made some sense. Knowing how these things work, some italian mathematician will have written this all much more nicely and elegantly four hundred years ago. Iain. [Modified to fix typo - twice]

              I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!

              T S L 3 Replies Last reply
              0
              • I Iain Clarke Warrior Programmer

                GAMerritt wrote:

                Why is there no scalar equation for a line in three dimensions ?

                I'm thinking you have the question back to front. Let's pretend a 1D universe. Then you have this equation:

                ax = d

                aka, in a 1D world, a scalar equation defines a point, or 0D object. In a 2D universe, you get this equation:

                ax + by = d

                aka, in a 2D world, a scalar equation defines a line, or 1D object. In a 3D universe, you get this equation:

                ax + by + cz= d

                aka, in a 3D world, a scalar equation defines a plane, or 2D object. To extrapolate... Σ(1->n) coeff [n] * axis [n] = d give an n-1 dimensional object. We just happen to have names for the previous things. I have no idea what you'd call a 3d scalar object in a 4d world. A hyper-plane? I hope that made some sense. Knowing how these things work, some italian mathematician will have written this all much more nicely and elegantly four hundred years ago. Iain. [Modified to fix typo - twice]

                I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!

                T Offline
                T Offline
                TheGreatAndPowerfulOz
                wrote on last edited by
                #12

                Iain Clarke, Warrior Programmer wrote:

                ax + by + cy= d

                did you mean ax + by + cz = d?

                "If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?" - Timon

                I 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • I Iain Clarke Warrior Programmer

                  GAMerritt wrote:

                  Why is there no scalar equation for a line in three dimensions ?

                  I'm thinking you have the question back to front. Let's pretend a 1D universe. Then you have this equation:

                  ax = d

                  aka, in a 1D world, a scalar equation defines a point, or 0D object. In a 2D universe, you get this equation:

                  ax + by = d

                  aka, in a 2D world, a scalar equation defines a line, or 1D object. In a 3D universe, you get this equation:

                  ax + by + cz= d

                  aka, in a 3D world, a scalar equation defines a plane, or 2D object. To extrapolate... Σ(1->n) coeff [n] * axis [n] = d give an n-1 dimensional object. We just happen to have names for the previous things. I have no idea what you'd call a 3d scalar object in a 4d world. A hyper-plane? I hope that made some sense. Knowing how these things work, some italian mathematician will have written this all much more nicely and elegantly four hundred years ago. Iain. [Modified to fix typo - twice]

                  I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!

                  S Offline
                  S Offline
                  Soulus83
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #13

                  Iain Clarke, Warrior Programmer wrote:

                  ax + by + cyz= d

                  I suppose the number of dimensions is proportionally direct to the number of variables in a scalar equation XD

                  Iain Clarke, Warrior Programmer wrote:

                  I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!

                  Then we are two! :-D

                  "Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--either way, you are right." — Henry Ford

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • T TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

                    Iain Clarke, Warrior Programmer wrote:

                    ax + by + cy= d

                    did you mean ax + by + cz = d?

                    "If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?" - Timon

                    I Offline
                    I Offline
                    Iain Clarke Warrior Programmer
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #14

                    ahmed zahmed wrote:

                    did you mean ax + by + cz = d?

                    It is possible, I suppose...

                    I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • I Iain Clarke Warrior Programmer

                      GAMerritt wrote:

                      Why is there no scalar equation for a line in three dimensions ?

                      I'm thinking you have the question back to front. Let's pretend a 1D universe. Then you have this equation:

                      ax = d

                      aka, in a 1D world, a scalar equation defines a point, or 0D object. In a 2D universe, you get this equation:

                      ax + by = d

                      aka, in a 2D world, a scalar equation defines a line, or 1D object. In a 3D universe, you get this equation:

                      ax + by + cz= d

                      aka, in a 3D world, a scalar equation defines a plane, or 2D object. To extrapolate... Σ(1->n) coeff [n] * axis [n] = d give an n-1 dimensional object. We just happen to have names for the previous things. I have no idea what you'd call a 3d scalar object in a 4d world. A hyper-plane? I hope that made some sense. Knowing how these things work, some italian mathematician will have written this all much more nicely and elegantly four hundred years ago. Iain. [Modified to fix typo - twice]

                      I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Lost User
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #15

                      Iain Clarke, Warrior Programmer wrote:

                      ax + by + cz= d

                      That's the equation for a plane. A line in 3 dimensions is the intersection of two planes. Cheers, Drew.

                      I 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • G GAMerritt

                        Someone was asking about that a while back: Why is there no scalar equation for a line in three dimensions ? http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165472[^] I think the R-difference (from R3 to R1) in dimensionality accounts for it. That's why there's no form analogous to Ax + By + C that includes a z-coefficient. Any ideas ? The only equation that might come close to fitting the bill is this one: Ax2 + Bxy + Cy2 + Dx + Ey + F = 0 If B2 - 4AC is zero this equation might represent a line, or two lines if less than zero. But this requires a section by a plane of a conic surface; and although it's a scalar equation, it still isn't linear; so I don't think it's suitable.

                        modified on Monday, March 14, 2011 5:09 PM

                        S Offline
                        S Offline
                        Super Lloyd
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #16

                        the linear equation is, in "geometric term" OA . OM = 0 where OA is your line vector and M a point in the plane in 3D I guess you can try | OA ^ OM | = 0 So if AO = (a, b, c) and OM = (x, y, z) something along the lines of (IIR, might have some sign error) | (bz - cy, cx - az, ay - bx ) | = 0 (bz - cy)^2 + (cx - az)^2 + (ay -bx)^2 = 0

                        A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • L Lost User

                          Iain Clarke, Warrior Programmer wrote:

                          ax + by + cz= d

                          That's the equation for a plane. A line in 3 dimensions is the intersection of two planes. Cheers, Drew.

                          I Offline
                          I Offline
                          Iain Clarke Warrior Programmer
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #17

                          You are right, I did miswrite it. I do know it's a plane - that was kind of the central thesis. Seems I should not try to be deep near bedtime! Iain.

                          I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Don't have an account? Register

                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • World
                          • Users
                          • Groups