Determining whether a large series of 3D points all line on a plane
$begingroup$
TL;DR: For a large series of precise 3D coordinates that describe a real-world orbit, how can we determine if they all lie exactly on a plane?
The Problem
I've used NASA's highly precise SPICE toolkit to calculate the hourly position of the moon relative to the Earth in Cartesian coordinates. The frame of reference for these points is the J2000 frame: Earth's equator (x and y), with the z-axis running orthogonally through the poles.
We know the moon's orbit does not lie on the equatorial plane. The Earth-Moon orbit is typically described as a plane that is 5.14 degrees inclined from the equatorial plane.
(This is a 28-day period from Jan. 2018, hence the small overlap since the sidereal month is 27.32 days.)
What I want to determine is whether this orbit is perfectly "flat" -- whether the Moon orbits the Earth on a perfect plane rotated from the terrestrial equator -- or whether there is even a slight variance on the z axis of this approximate Earth-Moon orbital plane.
It's certainly very close to a plane, as we'd expect, as you can see from a year's worth of z coordinates from the Earth's frame of reference. But orbit's are hugely complicated given all the possible aberrations, which the SPICE toolkit usually accounts for.
One idea I had was to choose three points in the orbit, spaced about 9 days apart, calculate the plane for those three points, and then calculate the distance from that plane for each point. This seems inelegant and possibly biased by which three points I choose, though in theory all I need to know is whether the distance of each point to the 3-point plane is zero, regardless of which three points define the plane.
It seems to me there is a more elegant solution than this brute-force approach?
3d plane-geometry mathematical-astronomy
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
TL;DR: For a large series of precise 3D coordinates that describe a real-world orbit, how can we determine if they all lie exactly on a plane?
The Problem
I've used NASA's highly precise SPICE toolkit to calculate the hourly position of the moon relative to the Earth in Cartesian coordinates. The frame of reference for these points is the J2000 frame: Earth's equator (x and y), with the z-axis running orthogonally through the poles.
We know the moon's orbit does not lie on the equatorial plane. The Earth-Moon orbit is typically described as a plane that is 5.14 degrees inclined from the equatorial plane.
(This is a 28-day period from Jan. 2018, hence the small overlap since the sidereal month is 27.32 days.)
What I want to determine is whether this orbit is perfectly "flat" -- whether the Moon orbits the Earth on a perfect plane rotated from the terrestrial equator -- or whether there is even a slight variance on the z axis of this approximate Earth-Moon orbital plane.
It's certainly very close to a plane, as we'd expect, as you can see from a year's worth of z coordinates from the Earth's frame of reference. But orbit's are hugely complicated given all the possible aberrations, which the SPICE toolkit usually accounts for.
One idea I had was to choose three points in the orbit, spaced about 9 days apart, calculate the plane for those three points, and then calculate the distance from that plane for each point. This seems inelegant and possibly biased by which three points I choose, though in theory all I need to know is whether the distance of each point to the 3-point plane is zero, regardless of which three points define the plane.
It seems to me there is a more elegant solution than this brute-force approach?
3d plane-geometry mathematical-astronomy
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Sounds fun! Though, almost certainly the points don't lie "exactly" on a plane. I'd recommend finding the plane that is closest to all the points in the least square sense. There are a couple of approaches to this described in the answers to this question. You can then use the average of the residuals to have an estimate as to how close the points are to planar. This would be similar to your three point solution but avoid the problem of bias that you are correctly concerned about.
$endgroup$
– Mark McClure
Dec 6 '18 at 18:43
$begingroup$
Thank you! There's even Python code in the link -- lucky me! (And I agree -- it would be suspiciously elegant for the Moon not to wobble even a few millimeters, though probably more than that)
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 18:49
$begingroup$
They don't lie exactly in a plane.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Dec 6 '18 at 19:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
TL;DR: For a large series of precise 3D coordinates that describe a real-world orbit, how can we determine if they all lie exactly on a plane?
The Problem
I've used NASA's highly precise SPICE toolkit to calculate the hourly position of the moon relative to the Earth in Cartesian coordinates. The frame of reference for these points is the J2000 frame: Earth's equator (x and y), with the z-axis running orthogonally through the poles.
We know the moon's orbit does not lie on the equatorial plane. The Earth-Moon orbit is typically described as a plane that is 5.14 degrees inclined from the equatorial plane.
(This is a 28-day period from Jan. 2018, hence the small overlap since the sidereal month is 27.32 days.)
What I want to determine is whether this orbit is perfectly "flat" -- whether the Moon orbits the Earth on a perfect plane rotated from the terrestrial equator -- or whether there is even a slight variance on the z axis of this approximate Earth-Moon orbital plane.
It's certainly very close to a plane, as we'd expect, as you can see from a year's worth of z coordinates from the Earth's frame of reference. But orbit's are hugely complicated given all the possible aberrations, which the SPICE toolkit usually accounts for.
One idea I had was to choose three points in the orbit, spaced about 9 days apart, calculate the plane for those three points, and then calculate the distance from that plane for each point. This seems inelegant and possibly biased by which three points I choose, though in theory all I need to know is whether the distance of each point to the 3-point plane is zero, regardless of which three points define the plane.
It seems to me there is a more elegant solution than this brute-force approach?
3d plane-geometry mathematical-astronomy
$endgroup$
TL;DR: For a large series of precise 3D coordinates that describe a real-world orbit, how can we determine if they all lie exactly on a plane?
The Problem
I've used NASA's highly precise SPICE toolkit to calculate the hourly position of the moon relative to the Earth in Cartesian coordinates. The frame of reference for these points is the J2000 frame: Earth's equator (x and y), with the z-axis running orthogonally through the poles.
We know the moon's orbit does not lie on the equatorial plane. The Earth-Moon orbit is typically described as a plane that is 5.14 degrees inclined from the equatorial plane.
(This is a 28-day period from Jan. 2018, hence the small overlap since the sidereal month is 27.32 days.)
What I want to determine is whether this orbit is perfectly "flat" -- whether the Moon orbits the Earth on a perfect plane rotated from the terrestrial equator -- or whether there is even a slight variance on the z axis of this approximate Earth-Moon orbital plane.
It's certainly very close to a plane, as we'd expect, as you can see from a year's worth of z coordinates from the Earth's frame of reference. But orbit's are hugely complicated given all the possible aberrations, which the SPICE toolkit usually accounts for.
One idea I had was to choose three points in the orbit, spaced about 9 days apart, calculate the plane for those three points, and then calculate the distance from that plane for each point. This seems inelegant and possibly biased by which three points I choose, though in theory all I need to know is whether the distance of each point to the 3-point plane is zero, regardless of which three points define the plane.
It seems to me there is a more elegant solution than this brute-force approach?
3d plane-geometry mathematical-astronomy
3d plane-geometry mathematical-astronomy
asked Dec 6 '18 at 18:34
Chris WilsonChris Wilson
122119
122119
1
$begingroup$
Sounds fun! Though, almost certainly the points don't lie "exactly" on a plane. I'd recommend finding the plane that is closest to all the points in the least square sense. There are a couple of approaches to this described in the answers to this question. You can then use the average of the residuals to have an estimate as to how close the points are to planar. This would be similar to your three point solution but avoid the problem of bias that you are correctly concerned about.
$endgroup$
– Mark McClure
Dec 6 '18 at 18:43
$begingroup$
Thank you! There's even Python code in the link -- lucky me! (And I agree -- it would be suspiciously elegant for the Moon not to wobble even a few millimeters, though probably more than that)
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 18:49
$begingroup$
They don't lie exactly in a plane.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Dec 6 '18 at 19:17
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Sounds fun! Though, almost certainly the points don't lie "exactly" on a plane. I'd recommend finding the plane that is closest to all the points in the least square sense. There are a couple of approaches to this described in the answers to this question. You can then use the average of the residuals to have an estimate as to how close the points are to planar. This would be similar to your three point solution but avoid the problem of bias that you are correctly concerned about.
$endgroup$
– Mark McClure
Dec 6 '18 at 18:43
$begingroup$
Thank you! There's even Python code in the link -- lucky me! (And I agree -- it would be suspiciously elegant for the Moon not to wobble even a few millimeters, though probably more than that)
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 18:49
$begingroup$
They don't lie exactly in a plane.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Dec 6 '18 at 19:17
1
1
$begingroup$
Sounds fun! Though, almost certainly the points don't lie "exactly" on a plane. I'd recommend finding the plane that is closest to all the points in the least square sense. There are a couple of approaches to this described in the answers to this question. You can then use the average of the residuals to have an estimate as to how close the points are to planar. This would be similar to your three point solution but avoid the problem of bias that you are correctly concerned about.
$endgroup$
– Mark McClure
Dec 6 '18 at 18:43
$begingroup$
Sounds fun! Though, almost certainly the points don't lie "exactly" on a plane. I'd recommend finding the plane that is closest to all the points in the least square sense. There are a couple of approaches to this described in the answers to this question. You can then use the average of the residuals to have an estimate as to how close the points are to planar. This would be similar to your three point solution but avoid the problem of bias that you are correctly concerned about.
$endgroup$
– Mark McClure
Dec 6 '18 at 18:43
$begingroup$
Thank you! There's even Python code in the link -- lucky me! (And I agree -- it would be suspiciously elegant for the Moon not to wobble even a few millimeters, though probably more than that)
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 18:49
$begingroup$
Thank you! There's even Python code in the link -- lucky me! (And I agree -- it would be suspiciously elegant for the Moon not to wobble even a few millimeters, though probably more than that)
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 18:49
$begingroup$
They don't lie exactly in a plane.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Dec 6 '18 at 19:17
$begingroup$
They don't lie exactly in a plane.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Dec 6 '18 at 19:17
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let's say that you have position vectors ${p_i:iin I}subset mathbb R^3$. If they were coplanar, you would have a vector $vinmathbb R^3$ such that $vcdot p_i=0$ for every $iin I$. Since this does not necessarily exist, what you can do instead is minimize the quadratic function
$$
f(v) = sum_{iin I} (vcdot p_i)^2
$$
over $vin S^2$.
This gives a good candidate for the "average orbit normal".
Edit 1: you have to subtract the barycenter of the points $p_i$ first, if you want the problem to be translation invariant.
Edit 2: the gradient of $f$ can be computed easily and is
$$
nabla f(v) = 2sum_{iin I} (vcdot p_i)p_i = 2left(sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_iright)v.
$$
With Lagrange multipliers, you want to find $vin S^2$ and $lambdainmathbb R$ such that $nabla f(v)=2lambda v$, because the constraint is $vcdot v=1$. This is equivalent to finding the eigenvalues of the $3times3$ matrix $sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_i$.
Edit 3: alternatively, call $P=sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_i$ and notice that $f(v)=v^TPv$. Therefore the minimum on $S^2$ is achieved at the eigenvectors corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue of $P$.
Edit 4: here is a picture of some points, the plane, the unit normal, and the segments indicating the distances of the points to the plane:
Edit 5: here is some Python code performing the computation
import numpy as np
# 120 random points in 3D
p = np.random.randn(120, 3)
# compute the svd
u, s, vh = np.linalg.svd(p, full_matrices=False)
# the best normal is the last row of vh
n = vh[-1]
# the sum of the squared distances is the square of the last singular value
sum_of_squared_distances = s[-1]**2
# verify the last statement
np.allclose((p@n) @ (p@n), s[-1]**2)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Interesting! Forgive my rusty memory here, but what is the space S below the equation? Thanks much
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 19:07
1
$begingroup$
The unit sphere in $mathbb R^3$. That's because you want your normal vector to be of unit length. Otherwise the global minimum would be $0$, attained for $v=0$.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:09
1
$begingroup$
@ChrisWilson I've added some more details, to show that the problem is equivalent to finding the smallest eigenvalue of a $3times3$ symmetic matrix.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:31
1
$begingroup$
Also, in case anyone wonders, $votimes w=vw^T$ is the outer product
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There don't seem to be outliers, you can use a total-least-squares plane fitting (it gives three solutions but the true one is easy to discriminate).
Then compute the distances to that plane.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3028869%2fdetermining-whether-a-large-series-of-3d-points-all-line-on-a-plane%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let's say that you have position vectors ${p_i:iin I}subset mathbb R^3$. If they were coplanar, you would have a vector $vinmathbb R^3$ such that $vcdot p_i=0$ for every $iin I$. Since this does not necessarily exist, what you can do instead is minimize the quadratic function
$$
f(v) = sum_{iin I} (vcdot p_i)^2
$$
over $vin S^2$.
This gives a good candidate for the "average orbit normal".
Edit 1: you have to subtract the barycenter of the points $p_i$ first, if you want the problem to be translation invariant.
Edit 2: the gradient of $f$ can be computed easily and is
$$
nabla f(v) = 2sum_{iin I} (vcdot p_i)p_i = 2left(sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_iright)v.
$$
With Lagrange multipliers, you want to find $vin S^2$ and $lambdainmathbb R$ such that $nabla f(v)=2lambda v$, because the constraint is $vcdot v=1$. This is equivalent to finding the eigenvalues of the $3times3$ matrix $sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_i$.
Edit 3: alternatively, call $P=sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_i$ and notice that $f(v)=v^TPv$. Therefore the minimum on $S^2$ is achieved at the eigenvectors corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue of $P$.
Edit 4: here is a picture of some points, the plane, the unit normal, and the segments indicating the distances of the points to the plane:
Edit 5: here is some Python code performing the computation
import numpy as np
# 120 random points in 3D
p = np.random.randn(120, 3)
# compute the svd
u, s, vh = np.linalg.svd(p, full_matrices=False)
# the best normal is the last row of vh
n = vh[-1]
# the sum of the squared distances is the square of the last singular value
sum_of_squared_distances = s[-1]**2
# verify the last statement
np.allclose((p@n) @ (p@n), s[-1]**2)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Interesting! Forgive my rusty memory here, but what is the space S below the equation? Thanks much
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 19:07
1
$begingroup$
The unit sphere in $mathbb R^3$. That's because you want your normal vector to be of unit length. Otherwise the global minimum would be $0$, attained for $v=0$.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:09
1
$begingroup$
@ChrisWilson I've added some more details, to show that the problem is equivalent to finding the smallest eigenvalue of a $3times3$ symmetic matrix.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:31
1
$begingroup$
Also, in case anyone wonders, $votimes w=vw^T$ is the outer product
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's say that you have position vectors ${p_i:iin I}subset mathbb R^3$. If they were coplanar, you would have a vector $vinmathbb R^3$ such that $vcdot p_i=0$ for every $iin I$. Since this does not necessarily exist, what you can do instead is minimize the quadratic function
$$
f(v) = sum_{iin I} (vcdot p_i)^2
$$
over $vin S^2$.
This gives a good candidate for the "average orbit normal".
Edit 1: you have to subtract the barycenter of the points $p_i$ first, if you want the problem to be translation invariant.
Edit 2: the gradient of $f$ can be computed easily and is
$$
nabla f(v) = 2sum_{iin I} (vcdot p_i)p_i = 2left(sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_iright)v.
$$
With Lagrange multipliers, you want to find $vin S^2$ and $lambdainmathbb R$ such that $nabla f(v)=2lambda v$, because the constraint is $vcdot v=1$. This is equivalent to finding the eigenvalues of the $3times3$ matrix $sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_i$.
Edit 3: alternatively, call $P=sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_i$ and notice that $f(v)=v^TPv$. Therefore the minimum on $S^2$ is achieved at the eigenvectors corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue of $P$.
Edit 4: here is a picture of some points, the plane, the unit normal, and the segments indicating the distances of the points to the plane:
Edit 5: here is some Python code performing the computation
import numpy as np
# 120 random points in 3D
p = np.random.randn(120, 3)
# compute the svd
u, s, vh = np.linalg.svd(p, full_matrices=False)
# the best normal is the last row of vh
n = vh[-1]
# the sum of the squared distances is the square of the last singular value
sum_of_squared_distances = s[-1]**2
# verify the last statement
np.allclose((p@n) @ (p@n), s[-1]**2)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Interesting! Forgive my rusty memory here, but what is the space S below the equation? Thanks much
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 19:07
1
$begingroup$
The unit sphere in $mathbb R^3$. That's because you want your normal vector to be of unit length. Otherwise the global minimum would be $0$, attained for $v=0$.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:09
1
$begingroup$
@ChrisWilson I've added some more details, to show that the problem is equivalent to finding the smallest eigenvalue of a $3times3$ symmetic matrix.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:31
1
$begingroup$
Also, in case anyone wonders, $votimes w=vw^T$ is the outer product
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's say that you have position vectors ${p_i:iin I}subset mathbb R^3$. If they were coplanar, you would have a vector $vinmathbb R^3$ such that $vcdot p_i=0$ for every $iin I$. Since this does not necessarily exist, what you can do instead is minimize the quadratic function
$$
f(v) = sum_{iin I} (vcdot p_i)^2
$$
over $vin S^2$.
This gives a good candidate for the "average orbit normal".
Edit 1: you have to subtract the barycenter of the points $p_i$ first, if you want the problem to be translation invariant.
Edit 2: the gradient of $f$ can be computed easily and is
$$
nabla f(v) = 2sum_{iin I} (vcdot p_i)p_i = 2left(sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_iright)v.
$$
With Lagrange multipliers, you want to find $vin S^2$ and $lambdainmathbb R$ such that $nabla f(v)=2lambda v$, because the constraint is $vcdot v=1$. This is equivalent to finding the eigenvalues of the $3times3$ matrix $sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_i$.
Edit 3: alternatively, call $P=sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_i$ and notice that $f(v)=v^TPv$. Therefore the minimum on $S^2$ is achieved at the eigenvectors corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue of $P$.
Edit 4: here is a picture of some points, the plane, the unit normal, and the segments indicating the distances of the points to the plane:
Edit 5: here is some Python code performing the computation
import numpy as np
# 120 random points in 3D
p = np.random.randn(120, 3)
# compute the svd
u, s, vh = np.linalg.svd(p, full_matrices=False)
# the best normal is the last row of vh
n = vh[-1]
# the sum of the squared distances is the square of the last singular value
sum_of_squared_distances = s[-1]**2
# verify the last statement
np.allclose((p@n) @ (p@n), s[-1]**2)
$endgroup$
Let's say that you have position vectors ${p_i:iin I}subset mathbb R^3$. If they were coplanar, you would have a vector $vinmathbb R^3$ such that $vcdot p_i=0$ for every $iin I$. Since this does not necessarily exist, what you can do instead is minimize the quadratic function
$$
f(v) = sum_{iin I} (vcdot p_i)^2
$$
over $vin S^2$.
This gives a good candidate for the "average orbit normal".
Edit 1: you have to subtract the barycenter of the points $p_i$ first, if you want the problem to be translation invariant.
Edit 2: the gradient of $f$ can be computed easily and is
$$
nabla f(v) = 2sum_{iin I} (vcdot p_i)p_i = 2left(sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_iright)v.
$$
With Lagrange multipliers, you want to find $vin S^2$ and $lambdainmathbb R$ such that $nabla f(v)=2lambda v$, because the constraint is $vcdot v=1$. This is equivalent to finding the eigenvalues of the $3times3$ matrix $sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_i$.
Edit 3: alternatively, call $P=sum_{iin I}p_iotimes p_i$ and notice that $f(v)=v^TPv$. Therefore the minimum on $S^2$ is achieved at the eigenvectors corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue of $P$.
Edit 4: here is a picture of some points, the plane, the unit normal, and the segments indicating the distances of the points to the plane:
Edit 5: here is some Python code performing the computation
import numpy as np
# 120 random points in 3D
p = np.random.randn(120, 3)
# compute the svd
u, s, vh = np.linalg.svd(p, full_matrices=False)
# the best normal is the last row of vh
n = vh[-1]
# the sum of the squared distances is the square of the last singular value
sum_of_squared_distances = s[-1]**2
# verify the last statement
np.allclose((p@n) @ (p@n), s[-1]**2)
edited Dec 7 '18 at 13:53
answered Dec 6 '18 at 18:59
FedericoFederico
5,029514
5,029514
$begingroup$
Interesting! Forgive my rusty memory here, but what is the space S below the equation? Thanks much
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 19:07
1
$begingroup$
The unit sphere in $mathbb R^3$. That's because you want your normal vector to be of unit length. Otherwise the global minimum would be $0$, attained for $v=0$.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:09
1
$begingroup$
@ChrisWilson I've added some more details, to show that the problem is equivalent to finding the smallest eigenvalue of a $3times3$ symmetic matrix.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:31
1
$begingroup$
Also, in case anyone wonders, $votimes w=vw^T$ is the outer product
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Interesting! Forgive my rusty memory here, but what is the space S below the equation? Thanks much
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 19:07
1
$begingroup$
The unit sphere in $mathbb R^3$. That's because you want your normal vector to be of unit length. Otherwise the global minimum would be $0$, attained for $v=0$.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:09
1
$begingroup$
@ChrisWilson I've added some more details, to show that the problem is equivalent to finding the smallest eigenvalue of a $3times3$ symmetic matrix.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:31
1
$begingroup$
Also, in case anyone wonders, $votimes w=vw^T$ is the outer product
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:38
$begingroup$
Interesting! Forgive my rusty memory here, but what is the space S below the equation? Thanks much
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 19:07
$begingroup$
Interesting! Forgive my rusty memory here, but what is the space S below the equation? Thanks much
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 19:07
1
1
$begingroup$
The unit sphere in $mathbb R^3$. That's because you want your normal vector to be of unit length. Otherwise the global minimum would be $0$, attained for $v=0$.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:09
$begingroup$
The unit sphere in $mathbb R^3$. That's because you want your normal vector to be of unit length. Otherwise the global minimum would be $0$, attained for $v=0$.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:09
1
1
$begingroup$
@ChrisWilson I've added some more details, to show that the problem is equivalent to finding the smallest eigenvalue of a $3times3$ symmetic matrix.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:31
$begingroup$
@ChrisWilson I've added some more details, to show that the problem is equivalent to finding the smallest eigenvalue of a $3times3$ symmetic matrix.
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:31
1
1
$begingroup$
Also, in case anyone wonders, $votimes w=vw^T$ is the outer product
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:38
$begingroup$
Also, in case anyone wonders, $votimes w=vw^T$ is the outer product
$endgroup$
– Federico
Dec 6 '18 at 19:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There don't seem to be outliers, you can use a total-least-squares plane fitting (it gives three solutions but the true one is easy to discriminate).
Then compute the distances to that plane.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There don't seem to be outliers, you can use a total-least-squares plane fitting (it gives three solutions but the true one is easy to discriminate).
Then compute the distances to that plane.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There don't seem to be outliers, you can use a total-least-squares plane fitting (it gives three solutions but the true one is easy to discriminate).
Then compute the distances to that plane.
$endgroup$
There don't seem to be outliers, you can use a total-least-squares plane fitting (it gives three solutions but the true one is easy to discriminate).
Then compute the distances to that plane.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 14:25
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
126k672226
126k672226
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3028869%2fdetermining-whether-a-large-series-of-3d-points-all-line-on-a-plane%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Sounds fun! Though, almost certainly the points don't lie "exactly" on a plane. I'd recommend finding the plane that is closest to all the points in the least square sense. There are a couple of approaches to this described in the answers to this question. You can then use the average of the residuals to have an estimate as to how close the points are to planar. This would be similar to your three point solution but avoid the problem of bias that you are correctly concerned about.
$endgroup$
– Mark McClure
Dec 6 '18 at 18:43
$begingroup$
Thank you! There's even Python code in the link -- lucky me! (And I agree -- it would be suspiciously elegant for the Moon not to wobble even a few millimeters, though probably more than that)
$endgroup$
– Chris Wilson
Dec 6 '18 at 18:49
$begingroup$
They don't lie exactly in a plane.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Dec 6 '18 at 19:17