Talk:Spherical polar coordinates: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>David E. Volk (subpages) |
imported>Aleksander Stos No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
I reverted changes by Anthony Argyriou because I don't know why he made them. Had I known I would have strived for a compromise. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 06:45, 16 January 2008 (CST) | I reverted changes by Anthony Argyriou because I don't know why he made them. Had I known I would have strived for a compromise. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 06:45, 16 January 2008 (CST) | ||
== conventions == | |||
Somewhat delicate and possibly confusing issue. Note that there are two possibilities: one might | |||
#exchange the ordering in the triple and *not* the meaning; i.e. one uses transform (r,phi,theta)->(x,y,z) with z=r*cos(theta) etc as in the basic convention | |||
#exchange the meaning of the angles, placing theta on the (x,y)-plane, as the Weisstein quotation describes (regardless the order of the spherical triple). | |||
As far as I can see, the option 1 is the Maple's choice (and BTW this is what I'm used to). | |||
They write (u,v,w)->(x,y,z): [x = u*cos(v)*sin(w), y = u*sin(v)*sin(w) z = u*cos(w)] | |||
I think it's too much to say that option 1 is a different convention (as the article suggests). But I'm not sure how to describe it in a clear way. [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 10:56, 16 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 11:56, 16 January 2008
I reverted changes by Anthony Argyriou because I don't know why he made them. Had I known I would have strived for a compromise. --Paul Wormer 06:45, 16 January 2008 (CST)
conventions
Somewhat delicate and possibly confusing issue. Note that there are two possibilities: one might
- exchange the ordering in the triple and *not* the meaning; i.e. one uses transform (r,phi,theta)->(x,y,z) with z=r*cos(theta) etc as in the basic convention
- exchange the meaning of the angles, placing theta on the (x,y)-plane, as the Weisstein quotation describes (regardless the order of the spherical triple).
As far as I can see, the option 1 is the Maple's choice (and BTW this is what I'm used to). They write (u,v,w)->(x,y,z): [x = u*cos(v)*sin(w), y = u*sin(v)*sin(w) z = u*cos(w)]
I think it's too much to say that option 1 is a different convention (as the article suggests). But I'm not sure how to describe it in a clear way. Aleksander Stos 10:56, 16 January 2008 (CST)