Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chriswarbo 1584 days ago
> In symplectic geometry an area is the fundamental quantity, whereas Euclidean geometry measures lengths and angles.

> yield the results in a coordinate, matrix and trigonometry-free manner

Some related ideas, for simplifying and generalising geometry:

Euclidean geometry is characterised by inner-product/symmetric-bilinear-form, shown in Section 2.1:

    ๐š๐› = aโ‚ร—bโ‚ + aโ‚‚ร—bโ‚‚
Where ๐š = aโ‚๐ฑ + aโ‚‚๐ฒ and ๐› = bโ‚๐ฑ + bโ‚‚๐ฒ. This is just the first components multiplied together, plus the second components multiplied together; and is easily generalised to N dimensions:

    ๐š๐› = ฮฃaโ‚™bโ‚™
So far, so familiar. We tend to measure vectors using their length, which is the square-root of the vector's inner-product with itself, e.g.

    |๐š| = โˆš(๐š๐š)
However, this is quite restrictive: the inner-product only requires + and ร—, which are well-defined for all sorts of fields (real numbers, complex numbers, finite fields, rational numbers, etc.); square-roots aren't so easy to define, which restricts Euclidean distance to only a few fields (e.g. real numbers and complex numbers).

Remarkably, we can do a lot of geometry without using length at all, hence not requiring square roots, and therefore generalising our results to many more fields. Instead, we just work with quantities like ๐š๐š directly, which can be interpreted as the area of a square with side-length |๐š| (AKA a "quadrance"). An obvious example is Pythagoras' theorem, which relates the quadrances of a right-triangle's sides.

This use of area is probably connected to symplectic geometry, but I haven't looked into that yet.

The approach described above is called Rational Trigonometry; which also avoids transcendental functions like cos/sin, by replacing angles with "spreads" (equivalent to the sin^2 of an angle), which range from 0 = parallel to 1 = perpendicular.

Looking again at the inner-product ๐š๐›, there's another degree of freedom lurking in there if we interpret it as matrix multiplication ๐š๐›แต€ (the rules of matrix multiplication require us to transpose the 1ร—n row-vector ๐› into the nร—1 column-vector ๐›แต€).

By default, this matrix formulation doesn't alter the inner product: it's still ฮฃaโ‚™bโ‚™. However, it gives us the flexibility to introduce an nร—n matrix ๐Œ in-between the vectors: ๐š๐Œ๐›แต€

If ๐Œ is the identity matrix [[1, 0], [0, 1]] (denoted ๐ˆ in the article), then we again keep the original behaviour. In this sense, Euclidean geometry is characterised by ๐ˆ (encoding its symmetric bilinear form).

If we use other nร—n matrices we get different geometries. In particular, the matrix [[1, 0], [0, -1]] gives us the "red" inner-product aโ‚ร—bโ‚ - aโ‚‚ร—bโ‚‚; and [[0, 1], [1, 0]] gives us the "green" inner-product aโ‚ร—bโ‚‚ + aโ‚‚ร—bโ‚. These are closely related to each other (one is a rotation of the other; both are 2D analogues of special-relativity), and to the "blue" Euclidean geometry. This colour-coding come from Chromogeometry, which studies their relations.

These are explained more in An Introduction to Rational Trigonometry and Chromogeometry (which I just submitted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30418194 )