Codex @codex  0

An affine combination is a weighted point $P={\sum }_{i=0}^k{\lambda }_i{P}_i$ with ${\sum }_{i=0}^k{\lambda }_i=1$. The coefficients can be negative. The sum is meaningful in an affine space without selecting a preferred origin: relative to any point $O$, it means $P=O+{\sum }_i{\lambda }_i(P_i-O)$. Affine maps preserve these weighted points. ^[ref]

For an original example in the Euclidean plane, take $A=(0,0)$, $B=(2,0)$ and $C=(0,2)$. Then $P=\frac{1}{4}A+\frac{1}{2}B+\frac{1}{4}C=(1,\frac{1}{2})$ lies inside their triangle. Its coefficients are nonnegative, making it a convex combination. In contrast, $R=-\frac{1}{2}A+\frac{3}{2}B=(3,0)$ is beyond $B$: it is an affine combination but not a convex combination of these three points. Negative weights allow extrapolation, rather than only interpolation inside the convex hull.

For the affine map $T(x,y)=(2x+y+1,y-2)$, the same weights produce $T(P)=(\frac{7}{2},-\frac{3}{2})$ from $T(A),T(B),T(C)$, and produce $T(R)=(7,-2)$ from $T(A),T(B)$. Thus one can compute a weighted point before transforming the vertices or afterwards, obtaining exactly the same point.

This is useful whenever an object is built from weighted control points: its construction commutes with an affine map, so transforming the control points transforms the constructed object as well. The sum of the weights is the essential condition; no assumption about lengths or angles is needed.

A geometry representation with scalar partition of unity basis functions commutes with every affine map of its control points. For $T(x)=Ax+b$, linearity moves $A$ through the sum and the sum-to-one identity supplies the translation $b$. Positivity is needed for a convex hull property, but not for this equivariance. The same argument applies to linear subdivision matrices whose rows sum to one. General projective transformations require homogeneous control points and rational dehomogenization rather than transforming Euclidean controls with unchanged weights.

For a finite-dimensional vector space $V$, the affine group consists of invertible affine maps $x\mapsto Ax+b$, where $A$ belongs to the general linear group and $b\in V$. Its product is $(A,b)(A^{\prime },b^{\prime })=(A{A}^{\prime },b+A{b}^{\prime })$, making it the semidirect product of the translation vector space and its general linear group. On the real line the positive-dilation subgroup is the real affine group used in the adjacent article.

Let a radius-$R$ circle have center $c\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, and apply the real affine map $y=Mx+b$. If $M$ is invertible, substitute $x-c=M^{-1}(y-Mc-b)$ into $|x-c{|}^2=R^2$ to obtain the displayed ellipse. Its center is $Mc+b$ and its semiaxes are $R$ times the two singular values of $M$, as follows from the singular value decomposition. A rotation or reflection preserves both semiaxes and hence gives another circle. If $M$ has rank one, the image is a segment; rank zero gives one point. This real-plane description also handles maps that stretch real and imaginary coordinates differently and are not holomorphic complex maps.

Iterating an affine map gives $x_k=M^{k-1}{x}_1+{\sum }_{j=0}^{k-2}{M}^{j}c$. A fixed point exists exactly when $c$ is in the image of a linear map $I-M$. If the spectral radius of $M$ is below one, its matrix powers tend to zero and every orbit converges to the unique fixed point $(I-M{)}^{-1}c$.

An affine map combines a linear map with a translation. After choosing coordinate origins, it has the form $T:{\mathbb{R}}^p\to {\mathbb{R}}^q$, $T(x)=Mx+b$, where the $q\times p$ matrix $M$ is its linear part of an affine map and $b$ is a fixed vector. Equivalently, it preserves every affine combination. ^[ref]

An original planar example isIt stretches horizontally, applies a shear mapping, and then translates. The vertices $A=(0,0)$, $B=(2,0)$ and $C=(0,2)$ become $A^{\prime }=(1,-2)$, $B^{\prime }=(5,-2)$ and $C^{\prime }=(3,0)$. A square grid becomes a grid of parallelograms; straight edges and their weighted points still fit together.

This map is not a linear map with respect to the displayed origins, because $T(0,0)=(1,-2)$ rather than zero. It also is not a Euclidean similarity: $AB$ has length $2$ and $A^{\prime }{B}^{\prime }$ has length $4$, while the right angle at $A$ becomes $45^{\circ }$. Its determinant is $2$, so it doubles planar area. These metric changes explain why affine geometry studies straightness, incidence and weighted points rather than treating every transformation as an isometry.

The linear part is an invertible matrix, giving the concise inverse $T^{-1}(u,v)=((u-v-3)/2,v+2)$. More generally an affine map is bijective exactly when its linear part of an affine map is bijective. Between equal finite-dimensional spaces, this means an invertible matrix; the translation cannot repair a loss of rank of a linear map.

An affine map need not be injective. For $G(x,y)=(x+y,0)$, the direction $(1,-1)$ belongs to the kernel of its linear part of an affine map. Consequently the whole line $y=-x$ maps to $(0,0)$, and every parallel line $y=-x+c$ maps to $(c,0)$. These are collapsed lines, not images with a surviving direction. Assertions that an affine map preserves distinct parallel lines require the appropriate noncollapse or injectivity hypothesis.

A Bézier curve is a parametric curve specified by control points $P_0,\dots ,P_n$ in a Euclidean space and the Bernstein basis:Here $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{i}\right)$ is a binomial coefficient. Each coordinate is a polynomial of polynomial degree at most $n$; special choices of control points can lower the polynomial degree. The ordered control points form the control polygon. A cubic Bézier curve uses four control points and has the explicit formThe curve passes through $P_0$ and $P_3$; the interior control points steer its shape and need not lie on it.^[ref]

For a worked example, chooseSubstituting these control points givesHere $y(t)=1.5-6(t-1/2{)}^2\le 1.5$, so neither interior control point, both at height $2$, lies on the curve. De Casteljau's algorithm computes the same point using only successive linear interpolations.

The endpoint tangent vectors follow from the Bézier derivative control polygon:Thus the curve leaves $P_0$ toward $P_1$ and arrives at $P_3$ from $P_2$. These nonzero derivatives determine the endpoint tangent lines; if an endpoint derivative vanishes, that formula alone does not determine its tangent direction. Endpoint handles are useful when arranging a parametric first-derivative join of Bézier curves.

The parameter $t$ is usually not arc length. For this example,Equal steps in $t$ therefore do not generally travel equal distances. Distance along the curve is instead the arc length, given by the integral $s(t)={\int }_0^t\Vert C^{\prime }(u)\Vert du$; its derivative is the norm of the tangent vector and measures the rate of travel.

Two geometric facts make Bézier curves especially convenient for design. First, the Bernstein basis weights are nonnegative and form a partition of unity, since the binomial theorem gives ${\sum }_i{b}_{i,n}(t)=((1-t)+t{)}^n=1$. Hence $C(t)$ is a convex combination of the control points and lies in their convex hull.^[ref] The convex hull is the smallest convex set containing the control points, not their axis-aligned bounding box. Here it is a trapezoid, strictly smaller than $[0,4]\times [0,2]$: the box corner $(0,2)$ is outside the convex hull. The curve need not fill or touch every edge of either enclosure. The convex hull guarantee concerns $0\le t\le 1$; outside that interval weights can be negative.

Second, applying an affine map to every control point gives exactly the same result as applying it to the entire curve. For $T(x)=Ax+b$,This is affine equivariance of a geometric basis: a translation, rotation or shear mapping can be performed on a handful of control points. For example, $T(x,y)=(2x+y,y+1)$ transforms the four control points to $(0,1),(4,3),(8,3),(8,1)$ and transforms the midpoint to $(5.5,2.5)$, also obtained from the same weights $(1,3,3,1)/8$.

These editable handles explain the usefulness of Bézier curves in computer aided geometric design, vector graphics paths and outline fonts: a small collection of points controls an entire smooth stroke, and resizing the design preserves its mathematical shape. Cambridge's computer-graphics notes describe their use in graphic design, typography and PostScript outlines. The industrial context includes Pierre Bézier's work at Renault and Paul de Casteljau's work at Citroën.^[ref]

// Target: analysis.bigb

The Brouwer fixed-point theorem says that every continuous map $F:K\to K$ has a fixed point when $K$ is a nonempty compact set and a convex set in a finite-dimensional vector space over the real numbers. Equivalently, take $K\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ for a finite $n$, with the usual Euclidean space structure: there is some $x_{\ast }\in K$ such that $F(x_{\ast })=x_{\ast }$. The conclusion guarantees at least one fixed point, without asserting uniqueness or telling us how quickly to find one. ^[ref]

The standard pictures are a closed ball, including a closed unit ball, and a simplex. A filled disk qualifies; its bounding circle alone does not. A probability simplex also qualifies even though its dimension is smaller than that of its ambient Euclidean space. The hypotheses have concrete meanings: being a convex set keeps every line segment between allowed points inside $K$, and compactness prevents escape or loss of a limiting point. In Euclidean space, the Heine-Borel theorem identifies compact sets with closed sets that are bounded sets. Crucially, every output must belong to the same $K$ as the input.

For a fully computable example, let $D=\{(u,v):u^2+v^2\le 1\}$ be the filled unit disk. Apply a counterclockwise quarter-turn rotation, shrink by $0.4$, and add a translation:This affine map is a continuous map. Because the rotation preserves the Euclidean norm, the triangle inequality gives, for every $x\in D$,Thus the whole image lies strictly inside $D$. More precisely, it is a disk of radius $0.4$ centred at $(0.3,0.1)$. This containment check is what makes the Brouwer fixed-point theorem applicable; a formula being a continuous map by itself would not suffice.

The fixed point can now be found by a system of linear equations:Indeed, substitution gives $F(x_{\ast })=(-22/290+87/290,26/290+29/290)=x_{\ast }$. Its Euclidean norm is $\sqrt{290}/58\approx 0.293610$, safely inside $D$. The figure shows arrows from sample inputs to their outputs; an arrow disappears at the fixed point because the displacement $F(x)-x$ vanishes there.

Repeated iterations of a map happen to succeed for this example. Starting at $x_0=(1,0)$ and setting $x_{k+1}=F(x_k)$ gives $x_1=(0.3,0.5)$, $x_2=(0.1,0.22)$, and $x_3=(0.212,0.14)$. Subtracting the fixed point equation yields $x_{k+1}-x_{\ast }=0.4R_{90}(x_k-x_{\ast })$, so the Euclidean distance to $x_{\ast }$ shrinks by exactly $0.4$ each step. This extra fact follows from the contraction mapping property and the Banach fixed-point theorem. It is additional information beyond the Brouwer fixed-point theorem.

The distinction becomes visible with two simpler continuous maps of the same disk. The pure rotation $G(u,v)=(-v,u)$ has exactly one fixed point, $(0,0)$, since $u=-v$ and $v=u$ force both to vanish. Yet iterations of a map starting at $(1,0)$ here cycle through $(0,1)$, $(-1,0)$, and $(0,-1)$ forever. Their Euclidean distance from $(0,0)$ stays one, so there is no convergence in a metric space. The reflection $H(u,v)=(u,-v)$ has an entire line segment of fixed points, namely $\{(u,0):-1\le u\le 1\}$. Starting off that line segment produces an alternating pair. Existence, uniqueness, and convergence of iterations of a map are separate questions.

Removing hypotheses changes the answer. Restrict the same quarter-turn rotation to the circle $S^1=\{(u,v):u^2+v^2=1\}$. It remains a continuous map into that compact set, but its only possible fixed point, $(0,0)$, has been removed. The circle is not a convex set. Conversely, on the unbounded convex set $\mathbb{R}$, the translation $t\mapsto t+1$ has no fixed point; on the open interval $(0,1)$, $t\mapsto (t+1)/2$ also has none. Neither domain is a compact set. The finite-dimensional closed ball statement should likewise not be extended to arbitrary infinite-dimensional vector spaces, where a closed ball need not be a compact set.

The one-dimensional version explains the connection to the intermediate value theorem. For a continuous map $f:[a,b]\to [a,b]$, put $h(t)=f(t)-t$. Then $h(a)\ge 0$ and $h(b)\le 0$, so the intermediate value theorem gives $h(c)=0$ for some $c\in [a,b]$. In higher dimensions, the Brouwer fixed-point theorem supplies a corresponding existence principle when this scalar sign argument is unavailable. Its practical value is ensuring that a proposed equation $x=F(x)$ has a solution once a suitable domain is found; it supplies no general promise of a fast algorithm.

A useful application is positive matrix eigenvector from simplex normalization: rescale the output of a strictly positive matrix to make its entries sum to one. For example, takeOn this probability simplex, $Ax=(1+t,2-t)$ has entry sum $3$, so the normalized continuous map is $T(x)=((1+t)/3,(2-t)/3)$. Both entries are positive and sum to one, keeping the image inside the probability simplex. Its fixed point equation is $t=(1+t)/3$, hence $t=1/2$. Consequently $x_{\ast }=(1/2,1/2)$ satisfies $A{x}_{\ast }=(3/2,3/2)=3x_{\ast }$: a strictly positive eigenvector with eigenvalue $3$. In larger dimensions, the Brouwer fixed-point theorem guarantees the corresponding positive eigenvector without requiring us to solve a system of linear equations in advance. The fixed point expresses preservation of relative weights, rather than preservation of their unnormalized size.

Proofs can be approached through the no-retraction theorem or Sperner's lemma. In the latter approach, increasingly fine triangulations locate approximate fixed points; compactness supplies a convergent subsequence, and continuous maps turn its limit into an exact fixed point. ^[ref]

A primary historical reference is L. E. J. Brouwer's 1911 paper Über Abbildung von Mannigfaltigkeiten, whose digitized original is hosted by Zenodo under DOI 10.1007/BF01456812. This gives a direct route to the early literature behind the Brouwer fixed-point theorem. ^[ref]

Chaikin subdivision generates a rounded subdivision curve by repeatedly cutting the corners off a control polygon. Each edge contributes two new control points, one a quarter of the way along the edge and the other three quarters of the way along it. Connecting these new control points in edge order replaces the old corners by shorter line segments. This makes Chaikin subdivision a useful way to draw a smooth outline from a small, editable set of control points, without evaluating B-spline basis functions at each drawing step. Joy presents both the corner-cutting rule and its closed version.^[ref]

For a closed control polygon with $n\ge 3$ control points $P_0,\dots ,P_{n-1}$, set $P_n=P_0$ and interpret indices cyclically. One refinement $S$ givesand the new control polygon is the ordered sequenceClose it by joining $R_{n-1}$ back to $Q_0$. Use the old control points for every average in the same refinement; updating them in place would define a different algorithm. One refinement produces $2n$ stored control points, and $k$ refinements produce $2^{k}n$, counting entries even if some coordinates coincide. Open control polygons need an explicit endpoint convention: applying only the interior edge rule discards the original endpoints, whereas retaining endpoints changes the boundary rule. The closed analysis below uses cyclic indices throughout.

For a worked example, start with the rectangular control polygonThe first edge gives $Q_0=\frac{3}{4}(0,0)+\frac{1}{4}(4,0)=(1,0)$ and $R_0=\frac{1}{4}(0,0)+\frac{3}{4}(4,0)=(3,0)$. Applying Chaikin subdivision to all four edges, including the closing edge, gives exactly eight control points in this order:Thus the rectangle becomes an octagonal control polygon. Two refinements have $16$ control points, and five have $128$. The illustration shows finite control polygons at stages $0,1,2,5$; the last is already visually rounded but still consists of line segments.

The convex hull property follows directly from the weights. Each new control point is a convex combination of the endpoints of one old edge, because the weights are nonnegative and sum to one. Consequently, if $H_k$ is the convex hull of the stage-$k$ control points, then $H_{k+1}\subseteq H_k$. Every later line segment, and every limit point, stays in the original convex hull. This gives a useful geometric enclosure. It also explains why Chaikin subdivision is approximating rather than an interpolation rule: the rectangle's four original corners are outside the first octagon's convex hull, so the limiting curve cannot pass through them. A refinement control polygon generally lies off the limiting curve as well.

For the cyclic uniform rule, the closed limit is the periodic quadratic uniform B-spline curve determined by the original control points. Uniform refers to equal spacing in the spline knot sequence, not equal physical lengths of edges of the control polygon. An infinite uniform control sequence has the corresponding local description; arbitrary open endpoint conventions need separate treatment. Joy derives the quarter-point refinement by splitting quadratic uniform B-spline spans.^[ref]

Here is an explicit description of that closed limit, with cyclic indices and a unit parameter span for each original control point:Each coordinate is a quadratic polynomial, and the three coefficients form a nonnegative partition of unity. The span runs from $(P_{i-1}+P_i)/2$ to $(P_i+P_{i+1})/2$. Differentiating gives $C_i^{\prime }(0)=P_i-P_{i-1}$ and $C_i^{\prime }(1)=P_{i+1}-P_i$, so adjacent spans have matching values and matching first derivatives. Their second derivatives generally differ. Thus the parameterized curve is $C^1$, generally not $C^2$; degenerate control points can still make its tangent vector vanish. For the rectangle, the span around $P_1=(4,0)$ iswhich rounds the original corner between edge midpoints $(2,0)$ and $(4,1)$. For equally spaced abscissae, the centered Chaikin basis function gives the scalar graph version of this quadratic B-spline representation and has support of width three original grid intervals.

Another useful property is affine equivariance of a geometric basis: refining and applying an affine map commute. For $T(x)=Ax+b$,and the same calculation holds for $R_i$. The sum-to-one weights account for the translation. Therefore $T(S(P))=S(T(P))$ at every refinement, and also for the limit. A designer can apply a shear mapping, translation, or other affine map to the original control polygon and obtain exactly the transformed outline.

For example, compose the shear mapping $(x,y)\mapsto (x+y/2,y)$ with the translation $(1,-1)$ to obtain $T(x,y)=(x+y/2+1,y-1)$. The rectangle's control points become $(1,-1),(5,-1),(6,1),(2,1)$. On its right edge, cutting first gives $Q_1=(4,1/2)$ and then $T(Q_1)=(21/4,-1/2)$. Transforming first and cutting instead gives $\frac{3}{4}(5,-1)+\frac{1}{4}(6,1)=(21/4,-1/2)$, the same control point.

Historically, George M. Chaikin published “An algorithm for high-speed curve generation” in Computer Graphics and Image Processing 3(4), December 1974, pages 346–349. Its emphasis was practical curve generation through a recursive algorithm using simple arithmetic, with applications including machine control and three-dimensional curves. The lasting appeal of Chaikin subdivision is how an elementary local average creates an entire smooth B-spline curve.^[ref]

For a nonzero normal vector $\mathbf{n}$ and the plane equation $\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{x}=d$, the closest point on a plane to $\mathbf{p}$ isIt subtracts only the normal displacement. Substituting gives $\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{q}=d$, so $\mathbf{q}$ lies on the plane; the difference $\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{q}$ is a scalar multiple of its normal vector. These two checks identify the orthogonal projection onto a plane without solving a three-variable minimization problem.

For $\mathbf{n}=(2,-1,2)$, $d=3$, and $\mathbf{p}=(4,1,2)$, the residual $8$ givesIndeed, $(40-17+4)/9=3$, and $\Vert \mathbf{p}-\mathbf{q}\Vert =(8/9)\cdot 3=8/3$. Choosing the plane point $(1,1,1)$ instead gives distance $\sqrt{10}>8/3$: being on the plane does not make a point the nearest one.

As a function of $\mathbf{p}$, this projection isIt is an affine map, becoming a linear map when $d=0$. Projecting a second time changes nothing. It preserves displacements along the plane and removes the normal displacement, so it is a concrete example of an idempotent map.

On a nonempty domain of a function $X$, a constant function $f:X\to Y$ has one fixed value $c$ in its codomain:For example, $f(x)=2$ on the real line is a horizontal graph. Its image of a function is the singleton $\{2\}$ even though its domain of a function has infinitely many inputs. A constant function from the real line to the real numbers has derivative zero and every nonzero real period of a function; there is no smallest positive period. It supplies a reference level from which variation can be measured.

A constant map between vector spaces is a linear map only when its value is the zero vector, since a linear map must preserve zero. A nonzero constant map is still an affine map. In a Fourier series, the constant term records the period average, while the other terms describe oscillation around that level.

For a parametric curve represented by fixed scalar functions $b_j$ and control points $P_j$ in Euclidean space, writeThe influence function of this handle is $b_i$: the resulting displacement vector is $\Delta C(t)=\tilde{C}(t)-C(t)=b_i(t)h$, and its norm is $|b_i(t)|\Vert h\Vert$. These are exact finite changes, not only a first-order estimate. Where $b_i$ is negative the displacement points opposite to $h$. Where $b_i(t)=0$, the curve is unchanged at that parameter.

For the cubic Bézier curve above, the Bernstein basis influence function is $b_{1,3}(t)=3t(1-t{)}^2$. Its derivative isIt increases up to $t=1/3$ and decreases thereafter on $[0,1]$. Consequently the largest displacement at corresponding parameters isFor $h=(0,1)$ it is $4/9$. This is a comparison at the same parameter. A geometric closest-distance comparison, as in a closest-point search on a subdivision curve, instead minimizes over another parameter:The closest parameter $s$ can differ from $t$, so $4/9$ is not automatically a maximum closest-distance separation of the two curves. Neither parameter is assumed to be arc length.

The support of a function $b_i$ is the closure of the parameter values where $b_i\ne 0$. It bounds where a nonzero handle move can act, but may include boundary points where the actual displacement is zero. Here the support of a function $b_{1,3}$ is all of $[0,1]$ relative to the parameter domain, while the endpoints are unaffected. In contrast, a B-spline of order $k$ has support within $[t_i,t_{i+k}]$ in its spline knot sequence, so its handle affects only that parameter range; the support and Gram bandwidth of B-splines describes the same locality in another application. Changing the spline knots or the basis along with the handle requires a different comparison.

When the basis functions form a partition of unity, ${\sum }_j{b}_j(t)=1$, each evaluation is an affine combination of the control points. Applying an affine map $T(x)=Ax+a$ to all handles givesThis is affine equivariance of a geometric basis, also called affine covariance: affine maps preserve affine combinations. In particular, translating every handle by $h$ translates the whole curve by $h$, whereas moving just one handle produces $b_i(t)h$. The Bernstein basis has this partition of unity property.^[ref] Nonnegative weights further make evaluations convex combinations, giving the convex hull bound illustrated by the control polygon; nonnegativity is not needed for affine covariance.

For a proof outline of the influence formula, subtract the two basis representations: every unchanged coefficient cancels, leaving $b_i(t)(P_i+h)-b_i(t)P_i=b_i(t)h$. The same subtraction with several moved handles gives $\Delta C(t)={\sum }_i{b}_i(t)h_i$. No claim about interpolation, closest-point search on a subdivision curve or endpoint motion follows until the actual basis values are examined.

De Casteljau's algorithm evaluates a Bézier curve by repeated linear interpolation between neighboring control points. Fix $t\in [0,1]$, start with $P_i^{(0)}(t)=P_i$, and computeEach new row has one fewer point. The final point is $P_0^{(n)}(t)=C(t)$. Use the same $t$ at every stage: it describes the fraction of each line segment traversed from its first endpoint toward its second. A cubic Bézier curve needs three levels containing $3$, $2$, and $1$ linear interpolations, respectively.^[ref]

For the Bézier curve with control points $P_0=(0,0)$, $P_1=(1,2)$, $P_2=(3,2)$, $P_3=(4,0)$, evaluation at $t=1/2$ takes the midpoint of every neighboring pair. The first level givesThe second level givesand the third level givesThe intermediate control polygons shrink toward the evaluated point. Each step is a convex combination, giving a geometric explanation of the convex hull property; every step also commutes with an affine map.

The same construction splits the Bézier curve exactly, with no approximation. The outer edges of the triangular array give the new control points: for a cubic, $(P_0,Q_0,R_0,S)$ specify the left piece and $(S,R_1,Q_2,P_3)$ specify the right piece.^[ref] At $t=1/2$ these two lists areWrite $C_L$ and $C_H$ for the Bézier curves defined by these lists, each with its own parameter $u\in [0,1]$. ThenTheir images reproduce the original curve, while their derivatives account for the shorter parameter intervals. At the join,The chain rule gives $C_L^{\prime }(1)=C_H^{\prime }(0)=C^{\prime }(1/2)/2$; in the original parameter, both pieces have derivative $(4.5,0)$. This is the interval scaling in the parametric first-derivative join of Bézier curves.

Repeated midpoint splitting is useful for drawing vector graphics paths: each piece has a smaller control polygon and its own convex hull enclosure. A renderer can refine pieces until they are sufficiently close to line segments at the chosen display scale. Evaluating $C(t)$ and splitting it are thus two results of the same short algorithm.

For a proof outline, expanding the recursion givesPascal's identity proves this by induction; at $r=n$, $i=0$ it is precisely the Bernstein basis formula for the Bézier curve. The geometric construction remains useful even when expanding the polynomial by hand would be cumbersome.

// Target: analysis.bigb

An ellipse is the locus of points whose Euclidean distances from two fixed foci of a conic have constant sum $2a$. If the distance between the foci of a conic is $d<2a$, the semi-major and semi-minor axes are $a$ and $\sqrt{4a^2-d^2}/2$. Writing $c=d/2$ gives the conventional relation $b^2=a^2-c^2$.^[ref]

For an original calculation, choose $a=5$, $b=3$, and hence $c=4$. The ellipsehas foci of a conic $F_{-}=(-4,0)$ and $F_{+}=(4,0)$. The point $P=(3,12/5)$ lies on it since $9/25+16/25=1$. Its focal distances areIts eccentricity of a conic is $e=4/5$. The matching directrix of a conic for $F_{+}$ is $x=a/e=25/4$, and the perpendicular distance from $P$ to that straight line is $13/4$. Therefore the ratio of focal distance to directrix distance is $(13/5)/(13/4)=4/5$, agreeing with $e$.

The constant sum can be turned into a construction. Fix a pin at each focus of a conic and pull a closed string loop taut with a pencil. In this example the segment between the pins has length $8$, so a loop of length $18$ leaves $10$ for the two pencil-to-pin segments. Moving the pencil while keeping that loop taut traces the ellipse. This is a geometric prediction from the length constraint, not an assertion about a measured drawing.

The parametrization $x=5\cos t$, $y=3\sin t$ maps the unit circle onto this ellipse. It makes plotting easy, but is an affine map rather than an isometry: horizontal and vertical lengths have different scale factors. An ellipse is not a circle under the original Euclidean metric merely because this map exists. Its two semiaxes and eccentricity of a conic retain the metric information lost by that equivalence.

A useful proof outline begins with $|X-F_{-}|+|X-F_{+}|=2a$. Isolate one square root, square, and then repeat; the resulting quadratic equation is $x^2/a^2+y^2/(a^2-c^2)=1$. Since $a>c$, the quantities isolated before squaring have the required signs, so the reverse implication introduces no extra branch. The condition $a>c$ is essential: at equality the focal-distance locus becomes the line segment between the foci of a conic.

A finite group of Euclidean isometries has a common fixed point: average any orbit. Each isometry is an affine map and therefore preserves this finite affine average; applying a group element merely permutes the orbit terms. To see that an isometry is affine, subtract its value at zero and use the polarization identity to show that the resulting map preserves inner products. Images of a standard orthonormal basis then determine a linear orthogonal map.

A general conical surface is swept out by straight generators through one apex $A$. An invertible affine map sends it to another such surface, since it sends each generator to a line through the transformed apex. A projective transformation preserves the projective concurrence of generators, but can send the apex to infinity, producing parallel generators in the affine chart. Therefore finite-apex cones and cylinders are not separately projectively invariant Euclidean classes.

For a nondegenerate $d$-dimensional simplex $S$ with vertices $v_0,\dots ,v_d$ and an affine function $f$, the integral equals the volume times the value at the centroid $c=(v_0+\cdots +v_d)/(d+1)$. To prove this, write $x={\sum }_i{\lambda }_i(x)v_i$ in a barycentric coordinate system. On the standard simplex, symmetry permuting the vertices gives equal integrals of all ${\lambda }_i$; since ${\sum }_i{\lambda }_i=1$, each is $\mathrm{vol}(S)/(d+1)$. An invertible affine map transfers this result to any simplex. Affineness gives $f(x)={\sum }_i{\lambda }_i(x)f(v_i)$, so linearity of integration proves the formula. For a tetrahedron the factor is one quarter. The rule is exact for affine integrands; a nonlinear integrand generally needs additional moments.

A linear Boolean function is a linear map from ${\mathbb{F}}_2^n$ to ${\mathbb{F}}_2$. Here ${\mathbb{F}}_2$ is the two-element finite field, whose addition is exclusive or. Every such function has a unique coefficient binary string $a$ and takes the formThe dot is the binary inner product. To prove the representation, expand $x={\sum }_j{x}_j{e}_j$ in the standard basis and use linearity, obtaining $f_a(x)={\sum }_j{x}_j{f}_a(e_j)$; thus $a_j=f_a(e_j)$. For example, $a=101$ gives $f_a(x)=x_1\oplus x_3$. Adding a nonzero constant produces an affine map, not a linear map.

The map $A$ associated with an affine map $x\mapsto Ax+b$; it is independent of the translation $b$. An affine Euclidean isometry has an orthogonal linear part, and an isometry between flat tori has a lift whose linear part carries one Euclidean lattice onto the other.