2

I've read that projection maps are an important type of maps whose domain is a product of n possibly different sets. My question is that why do they name them "projection" maps? What are we projecting exactly? Yes we are mapping or relating the product of the sets to an output (thats what a mapping already is ) but what are we projecting?

2 Answers2

3

Here's an application of projections, called a stereographic projection, that should seem a bit more "concrete" in a way.

This below is the called the inverse stereographic projection, mapping a lower dimension to a higher dimension.

Let's begin like this, I want you to look at the image below first. All it contains is a circle of radius $1$ and a line is in the form $y=mx+1$ with $m$ ranging from $-10$ to $10$.

enter image description here

  1. Consider the very top point of the circle, the point $(0,1)$, as undefined.

  2. Note that as the slope changes, where the line intersects the circle and the $x$-axis changes as well. In a single snapshot of the gif, let's call the point it intersects on the $x$-axis as $(x_0, 0)$ or just $x_0$ for short. Call the point it intersects on the circle $(x_c,y_c)$

  3. Now try to imagine this: in that random snapshot of the gif (where the line is held still) map ("assign") the point $x_0$ to $(x_c,y_c)$. Now go to the next snapshot and do it again, and again, ...

Now let the slope instead of being anything in the range $[-10, 10]$, be anything in $( - \infty, \infty)$. What follows is every single point on the real number line ($x$-axis) gets assigned to a point on the circle! This is the projection aspect. With room to spare even, that point on the top of the circle never got assigned anywhere after all.

Can we find the function of this projection, you say?

Yes! Let's find the function $f$ that tells us where our point $x_0$ goes on the circle. It'll be a function mapping one number to two, or more explicitly, $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{S} \backslash \{ (0,1) \}$, where $\mathbb{S} \backslash \{ (0,1) \} = \{  x \in \mathbb{R}^2 | x^2 + y^2 = 1, \ \ (x,y) \neq (0,1) \}$.

To get started we need to know what we have to work with. Without loss of generality let's let the radius be $1$ (that is, you can make the radius whatever you please, I just wanted to make it look pretty in the end). What we have is

$$\begin{cases} x^2+y^2=1 \\ y=mx+1 \text{ where } m = -\frac{1}{x_0} \end{cases} $$

which is actually all we need. Let's leave the $m$ in there for now though to avoid having to deal with messy equations, and just remember that our circle doesn't include the point $(0,1)$.

From here it's a matter of some plug and chug.

$x^2+(mx+1)^2=1$

$x^2+m^2x^2+2mx=0$

$(1+m^2)x^2+2mx=0$

$\displaystyle{ x=\frac{-2m \pm \sqrt{4m^2}}{2(1+m^2)}}$

$\implies x=\displaystyle{\frac{-2m}{1+m^2}}$

Great! Now we complete the same procedure for the other coordinate.

$\displaystyle{\left(\frac{y-1}{m} \right) ^2 + y^2 = 1}$

$y^2-2y+r^2+m^2y^2=m^2$

$(1+m^2)y^2-2y+(1-m^2)=0$

$y=\displaystyle{\frac{2 \pm \sqrt{4-4(1+m^2)(1-m^2)}}{2(1+m^2)}}$

$ y= \displaystyle{\frac{1 \pm m^2}{1+m^2}}$

Here we must choose $1-m^2$ for the numerator because otherwise things would simplify to $y=1$, and remember, (0,1) wasn't defined on our circle.

$\displaystyle{ \implies y=\frac{1-m^2}{1+m^2}}$

All this, in summary, provides the following function: $$f(x_0)=\displaystyle{ \left< \frac{-2m}{1+m^2}, \frac{1-m^2}{1+m^2} \right>}$$ which, after plugging in the fact that $m=-\frac{1}{x_0}$ provides...

$$f(x_0)=\displaystyle{ \left< \frac{2x_0}{{x_0}^2+1}, \frac{{x_0}^2-1}{{x_0}^2+1} \right>}$$

And there we have it, any point $x_0$ on the real number line can be mapped to the point $f(x_0)$ on our circle of radius $1$! :)

Now the inverse of our above function, which goes from $\mathbb{S} \backslash \{ (0,1) \} \to \mathbb{R}$ is the stereographic projection, projecting the circle to the real number line.

Try to find the function, which we'll call $g: \mathbb{S} \backslash \{ (0,1) \} \to \mathbb{R}$ yourself.

I'll put the answer below in a spoiler.

It's found as follows: the slope, since we don't have $x_0$, is now given by $\displaystyle{m=\frac{1-y_c}{-x_c}}$. Solving $y=mx+1$ for $x_0$ is done by substituting $y=0$ then some algebra, giving $\displaystyle{x_0 = f^{-1}(x_0) = g(x_c, y_c) = \frac{x_c}{y_c -1}}$.

Also note, by finding the inverse of our above function you've also shown that a circle of radius $1$ has "as many elements" as the real number line ($\mathbb{S} \backslash \{ (0,1) \} \cong \mathbb{R}$) :)

  • Thank you @Andrew ! :) I enjoyed reading it . But I have a question. The line drawn in the gif has a slope varying between +10 and -10 , but what would a line having a slope between plus and minus infinity look like? –  Aug 06 '17 at 14:39
  • Also in the other answer posted , it says that: Generally a projection map "projects" elements onto a lower dimensional subspace which is a product of some subset of those sets. But in your example , we did the opposite (from R to R×R) , so I conclude that it could be the other way around too right? –  Aug 06 '17 at 14:49
  • 1
    @ZaKh Glad I could help! The difference would be (if it were in some kind of gif) that as the slope approaches infinity it would as if it's getting more and more vertical! The concept is as the slope gets closer to infinity, ever point on the circle gets mapped -- so what we want is to get that point "right beside" $(0,1)$ to get assigned its own spot, and for that to happen the line has to be essentially vertical. – Andrew Tawfeek Aug 06 '17 at 14:49
  • 1
    @ZaKh You're correct! I actually made a mistake in my answer, what I posted is the inverse stereographic protection mapping $\mathbb {R} \to \mathbb {S} \subset \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$. The proper projection is the one that maps the circle to the real number line, I'll fix my answer now but leave it as a challenge for you to find the function for the other projection :) – Andrew Tawfeek Aug 06 '17 at 14:52
  • 1
    @ZaKh See my update – Andrew Tawfeek Aug 06 '17 at 15:01
  • Thank you:) actually it was good that u made that little mistake so that I practiced to find the function by myself and checked it back from the spoiler ^_^. I was wondering about the reason that the point (0,1) is not defined in neither functions . Is it because if it were defined then it would be assigned to all points on the circle and the real number line ? So this way there wouldn't be a mapping from either functions, since a mapping requires that each element be assigned to just another one element and not more ? –  Aug 07 '17 at 11:57
  • And I liked the last idea you mentioned. A circle does seem at first to have a limited number of elements or just a few elements, but a projection shows the difference. –  Aug 07 '17 at 12:03
  • 1
    @ZaKh Well you're right in $(0,1)$ causing problems -- the thing is, even if we ignore the point and map everything else first and leave that point to deal with in the very end -- there's just nothing left over for it to be assigned to, as we've already mapped everything on the real number line. Also, note the only time the line intersects just the point $(0,1)$ is when it's completely vertical -- but when this happens the line is no longer instersecting the $x$-axis! – Andrew Tawfeek Aug 07 '17 at 12:03
  • 1
    @ZaKh One interesting thing my professor had told me (he had first shown me this projection) is "if infinity had a numerical representation, then the top point would get assigned infinity", which may be a bit more "intuitive"-ish way of seeing why its undefined – Andrew Tawfeek Aug 07 '17 at 12:05
  • 1
    @ZaKh Oh, and lastly, everything I did can be done with a sphere and $\mathbb{R}^2$ (a plane), but it'll require a very small bit of multivariable calculus. I'll leave that up to you to ultimately figure out :) – Andrew Tawfeek Aug 07 '17 at 12:06
2

Generally, a projection map "projects" elements onto a lower dimensional subspace which is a product of some subset of those sets. For example, consider the map $(x,y) \mapsto x$ from $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$, which projects onto the first coordinate. If you were to express this graphically, you would see that you can take any point and project it vertically onto its $x$-coordinate, almost as if it were the "shadow" of the point along this vertoca; line.

platty
  • 3,555