Talk:Orientation (geometry)

message: :I wonder how standard this "orientation" term is, I confuse it with the other notion of orientation.
It is unfortunate that the word has two meanings, especially because they are sometimes used both in the same context. What else would you call it?--Patrick 10:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. However, my question was still whether "orientation" used in this context is standard. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so.--Patrick 17:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the orientation of an object in space is standard informal meaning the direction in which the object is pointed. Don't confuse it with the orientation of vector space basis, which is only an order on the basis vectors.--MarSch 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: orientation

message: I don't understand what this article wants to say. The first sentence says that orientation changes by rotation. But what is orientation to start with? This is not clear from the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is so basic that it is hard to find even more basic terms to explain it in. The article explains the relation with another basic term, rotation, and points out that orientation has also another meaning.--Patrick 11:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but orientation can be described by the directions of axes fixed in the body.--Patrick 11:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "rotation" is also basic, but it has a rigurous math definition eventually, it is an orthogonal matrix with positive determinant. The "orientation" concept must be defined in some rigurous mathematical way too. That something is basic is no excuse not to define it. Pretending for a moment that I don't know what orientation is (and actually, I am not sure I have a good grasp of that concept), this article does not help in explaining it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a formal part.--Patrick 23:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The present caption states “Changing orientation is the same as moving the coordinate axes.” That caption is wrong in some interpretations of it. For example, the orientation of a rigid body is changed if the coordinate axes fixed to the body are changed, but it is not changed if the coordinate axes used for description of the body are changed. Brews ohare (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think it is enough to say something like “For a rigid body, changing orientation is the same as moving some coordinate axes fixed on it”. Would this be OK?--Juansempere (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like: “For a rigid body, changing its orientation is the same as moving a set of coordinate axes affixed to it”.  Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like yours more than mine.--Juansempere (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption of figure in lead 

message: The definition of orientation should not contain the word orientation (as in "rotation from a base or initial orientation").
It may be defined as the rotation that, together with a traslation, would ideally move the body from an arbitrary reference position to its current position (I use here the word position to mean both linear and angular position).
Can you find some simpler (but equally valid) way to define it? 
— Paolo.dL (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition