Mathematics desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 17

Normalizing logarithmic lines

I have a bunch of logarithmic equations in the form y=a ln(x)+b. In some cases, a and b are in the range of 1,000,000 to 10,000,000. In others, they are on the range of 100 to 1,000. Is there a "proper" way to normalize these so that they can be graphed together and compared. I am looking at similarities in the curve. Because of my requirement, I considered graphing y=(a/b) ln(x), which would make the y intercept the same for all of the graphs. Note: The x-scale is the same for all graphs: 1 to 100. -- kainaw ™ 19:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Because I'm looking at probability distributions with vastly different population sizes, I think that using Zipf–Mandelbrot law may be a better method of comparison than comparing the logarithmic trend lines. The trick is to convert something like f(x)=-10278.8 ln(x)+48873.6 to a Zipfian form. -- kainaw ™ 19:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the transformations of a matrix

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

The paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_matrix#Finding_the_matrix_of_a_transformation explains how to find the matrix belonging to a linear map. But how do I find the transformations that belong to a given matrix, which means finding the angle of rotation, scale factor and so on for the basic transformations? In other words: how to decompose a matrix into the basic transformations mentioned in said paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.37.3 (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might try Jordan normal form, especially the section on real matrices.--RDBury (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that's what the OP's after. Putting a matrix into Jordan normal form is done by changing the basis. I think the OP wants to write a given linear transformation, with respect to a given basis, as the composition of a rotation, a shear transformation, a reflection, a dilation, etc. I'm not sure that there's a unique answer either. Matrix multiplication isn't commutative and any fixed matrix can be written as uncountably many products of pairs of matrices. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the 2x2 matrix in question is of the form

e^{X}

, then

X=a{\begin{bmatrix}1&&0\\0&&1\end{bmatrix}}+b{\begin{bmatrix}1&&0\\0&&-1\end{bmatrix}}+c{\begin{bmatrix}0&&1\\1&&0\end{bmatrix}}+d{\begin{bmatrix}0&&-1\\1&&0\end{bmatrix}}

Here

e^{a}

is the dilation factor,

e^{b}

and

e^{c}

are shear factors, and d is the rotation angle. Reflections are not of the form

e^{X}

, I think. Bo Jacoby (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Any matrix can be (basically uniquely) written as a strain followed by a (improper) rotation. This is the polar decomposition. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]