|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2016 7:10:37 GMT
Gary
This exercise is posed near the beginning of paragraph 2 on page 305.
The result we are being asked to show is analogous to the result in Euclidean and spherical geometry:
There is only one line through $p$ orthogonal to the line $L$, and this line can be constructed as the line through $p$ and its reflection in $L$.
We can refer to figure 24 on page 304. We must also remember the definition of reflection as described in the paragraph immediately following (38) on page 303.
If we have a point $p$ on the map, then since $\mathcal{I}_L(p)=\mathfrak{R}_L(p)$, we can construct $\mathfrak{R}_L(p)$ as the inverse point to $p$ in $L$. We can now find the centre of the h-line through these two points by constructing the perpendicular bisector to the line joining them and finding its point of intersection with the horizon. If we now draw the unique h-line through the points $p$ and $\mathfrak{R}_L(p)$, symmetric with respect to $L$, it must cut $L$ at right angles (see page 129 and figure 6a).
So we have shown that $M$ may be constructed as the unique h-line through $p$ and its reflection $\mathfrak{R}_L(p)$ in $L$.
Vasco
|
|
Gary
GaryVasco
Posts: 3,352
|
Post by Gary on Oct 13, 2016 17:28:08 GMT
Vasco
An alternative: Any circle drawn through p and $\mathfrak{R}(p)$ is orthogonal to L (p. 129, quote under Figure [6]). Since M is the only h-line passing through p that cuts L at right angles, the circle through p and $\mathfrak{R}(p)$ must be M.
I had a bit of trouble following your argument.
In the last sentence, I wasn't sure what you meant by "these two inverse points".
Gary
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 14, 2016 8:35:54 GMT
Vasco An alternative: Any circle drawn through p and $\mathfrak{R}(p)$ is orthogonal to L (p. 129, quote under Figure [6]). Since M is the only h-line passing through p that cuts L at right angles, the circle through p and $\mathfrak{R}(p)$ must be M. I had a bit of trouble following your argument. In the last sentence, I wasn't sure what you meant by "these two inverse points". Gary Gary I agree that the wording in my post about inverses was less than precise and so I have edited the original post in red to correct this. I do not agree with your alternative proof above, because I see the exercise as Needham asking us to describe how we would actually construct $M$ given only $p$ and the h-line $L$ (analogous to being given a point $p$ and a Euclidean straight line $L$, and being asked to construct the particular perpendicular bisector of the given line that passes through the point $p$). Initially you do not know where the point $\mathcal{I}_L(p)=\mathfrak{R}_L(p)$ is, and until you do you cannot construct an h-line through those points, and which intersects $L$ orthogonally. Figure 24 just makes it clear that there is such a line, but not how to construct it. Vasco
|
|