Talk:Transformation (function)

Beyond Scope

I'm of the opinion that math articles should not mention applications in the intro. Mentioning graphics in the intro I don't think is wise, especially since transformations in graphics aren't always done using straightforward functions. Brentt 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this stinks. a kid like me doesnt undersand this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.225.41 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC) dude i know where you live now. in texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.142.247 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the "otheruses4" tag linking to Transform (mathematics) (which is a candidate for deletion/redirection to Integral Transform). Christophre (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this page extremely useful, particularly the graphics. lliweerf?Lliweerf? (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inversion transformation

I propose to add inversion transformation to the article, if there is no objection, in one week. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]

Sounds good. What kind(s) of inversion are you thinking about? Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation in time

Space is identical in every point so that there is no change of space. Time is different in every moment ‘now’ so that time is transformation only, without static state. A change of position in space means transformation through an interval (0<1) of time not through space. The velocity of transformation can be quantitative, continuous or a combination of the two. The variation of velocity with which change occurs is called the ‘function’ and it is symbolized by ‘f’. The type of change can be also called ‘the law of nature’ or an ‘organization’. Velocity of transformation is measured by the observer’s unit of consciousness ‘now’, which is a unit of space time. The velocity depends also on the plurality of the units ‘now’ of time within the current ‘now’ and manifested as memory. Plurality of the units ‘now’ from the past is symbolized by ‘n’ within the total plurality ‘c’ of the whole of the transformation through (0<1) so that u=n/c is the position (0<u<1) of the ‘now’ on the total interval of the transformation. The ‘now’, located in ‘u’, travels along the interval guided by the function i=f(u). At each point ‘u’ the ‘u’ is the sum of all the units ‘now’ within the part (0<u). With each new observation the ‘now’ changes position from ‘n’ units of ‘now’ to (n+1) units of ‘now’. Space, being static, does not take part in the transformation but magnitude of the unit of space time, which is the unit ‘now’, creates plurality ‘n’ in ‘u’ and measures magnitude of space. The basic velocity of change is linear and it is governed by the function f=1/2. When the observer’s ‘now’ remains constant, and it repeats itself at regular intervals, the transformation through time, using symbol ‘i’ for the variation of the velocity of change, can be represented mathematically as;

                                                           n
                                                      oo  2	                                         i  =  Σ u / n 
                                                      n=1   2

KK (83.26.189.13 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Quack! Quack! This is the crankiest piece of nonsense that I have seen in a while. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like your boldness. Three hours to read the article and understand new knowledge is not enough. I sugest - read the article again (slowly), think and then ask questions if you want to know more.The equation for transformation has printed better in 'editing', Cosmology can be difficult because of its connection to physics, biology and so on. KK (178.43.124.97 (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Reference?

I pulled this reference

P. M. Pardalos, P. G. Georgiev and H. M. Srivastava (eds.), Nonlinear Analysis. Stability, Approximation, and Inequalities. In honor of Themistocles M. Rassias on the occasion of his 60th birthday, Springer, New York, 2012.

because I can see no relation between it and the article. The IP editor who put it in seemed to be plastering references to Rassias all over the place. I've placed it here in case I'm wrong and someone sees a relevance. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A function which is not a transformation?

I cant think of any. If there is some definite idea to distinguish "transformation" and "function", it would be much clearer. Also, the introduction isn't explicit enough, it must mention explicitly that the definition of transformation is informal, it may mislead newcomers because they often take the properties described in the article definite. I'm no expert so kindly leave the edit for you guys.

It seems to me that transformation is a "concrete function". I think it is appropriate to replace the word "function" with "transformation", if one can clearly see the way the function applies, say, on geometry and algebra, we can see clearly that the shape or formulation changes according to the function respectively, whereas "function" is an abstract object, which is often defined formally, and by no mean concrete. If this is correct, then it also explains why "transformation" is often used on geometry and algebra only. 14.198.221.131 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The def does not match the source cited. The common def is that a transformation is a function from a set into itself, not into another. I'm going to fix that. JMP EAX (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation-function.

Transformation is contained in the 'distance' from the beginning '0' to the end '1' in the spacetime (0<1). This can be either linear transformation through units of variable internal pluralities of identical parts (spatial transformation), or transformation through identical units with variable velocity (temporal transformation). The type of transformation is controlled by 'function' symbolised by 'f'. The 'f' stands for both, static organization (law of nature) and for the type of change (limited pl;urality of the laws). KK (86.161.176.148 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Would it be messy to put "see 'Linear Transformation' for matricies..."

I'm not familiar with the standards on such a thing as this, but as I was reading this article I wanted to know what the matricies were for the transformation. I found the matricies on the "Linear Map" page (which "Linear Transformation" redirects to), and maybe other readers are a curious about that as I was, but concerning standards I don't see a good place to put the comment (in the introduction?!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.247.236 (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morphisms

I have not heard of any source saying that morphisms are synonymous with transformations. The phrase "structure-preserving transformation" is sometimes used for morphisms; search for "structure-preserving transformation" and morphism in Google Books for example. (More often, morphisms are referred to as structure-preserving mapping.) JMP EAX (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Transformation (combinatorics)

That article starts by claiming there are several senses for the term in combinatorics, but only details one and that one is exactly sense given here, i.e. it coincides with the sense from in semigroup theory. JMP EAX (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Fourier transform operator?

What about the Fourier transform operator ${\mathcal {F}}$ , isn't that a form of transformation, since it maps the function space $\mathbb {R} \rightarrow \mathbb {C}$ to itself? —Kri (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a point. The article seems to me to focus on an extremely limited set of examples: dominantly on linear transformations, and it should be expanded to deal with the concept of a transformation more generally. As such, there is a lot of work needed in this article. —Quondum 16:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]