Matthew
Smith
|
| Posted on Friday, 23
April, 2004 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Well, part of your transformation,
from
to
, is
just a stretch in both axes. It's multiplying
, the
distance of each point from the origin, by 4, which
is exactly the same as multiplying both the
and
co-ordinates by 4. For example, the point (1,1) is
mapped to (4,4), the point (2,3) is mapped to (8,12) and,
in general, the point
is mapped to
.
This doesn't change
because the direction
represented by the ratio
doesn't change.
However, the other part of your transformation, from
to
, isn't quite
so simple to think of in Cartesian co-ordinates, as it
maps
to
, which isn't very helpful.
The most natural way to describe your transformation is
in the language of polar co-ordinates: it is a stretch
by a factor 4 in the radial direction, followed by a step
outwards of 2 in the radial direction. A step in the
radial direction, however, isn't quite like a shift in
the
or
axes, as it doesn't leave the graph
undistorted.
Matthew.
|