Suppose I have a function f(x,y,z)=x2+y2+z2
Obviously, we cannot have a visualization of such function.
However, suppose that the function is restricted to the unit simplex, i.e. set Z={→v=(x,y,z)∈R3|x+y+z=1}
All of a sudden, I can produce another function:
g(x,y)=x2+y2+(1−x−y)2
whose value is identical to that of f(x,y,z) at every point x,y,and z=1−x−y and I can easily plot this function over all of R2
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E2+%2B+y%5E2+%2B(1-x-y)%5E2
What is the precise relationship between g,f and their graphs?
Obviously, the graph of g is not that of the graph of f. But every point on the graph of g is equal to f over Z , which implies indeed that the graph of g tells me about what f looks like over the simplex. This seems counter intuitive to me. So what is the relationship between their graphs? Does the graph of g tell me anything about f and what the graph of f looks like?
Answer
Let us take a look at f(x,y)=x2+y2, it is a paraboloid in R3. One way to see this is to visualize the level sets at f(x,y)=c2. For every c>0 you have a circle with radius c, now if you set the z axis to be c2 then you can plot the paraboloid as continuously growing circles in R3, as the level sets are just the intersection of planes that are parallel to the xy plane and f(x,y).
Now, consider what happens if instead of "slicing" the figure by z=c2 planes, you are slicing it with some plane such as y=1−x. At this cases the "set levels" are ellipses.
Same logic is true for scalar function f(x,y,z) which graph is in R4, however its slices "live" in R3. When you take y2+x2+z2=c2, then you have continuously growing set of spheres, however when you slice it with some "plane" z=1−x−y you have the figure that you see.
No comments:
Post a Comment