Talk:Shear mapping

message: I propose that this article and shear matrix be merged.
Though that article was created with only two edits, it is a valuable resource on this topic. Only today did I learn of it and respond to the alert given by another editor. On the other hand, that article uses column vectors, instead of the in-line row vector approach. Since linear algebra depends on facility with both, this jump between pages gives some necessary exercise. Futhermore, the focus on two-dimensions at the outset, allows this article to be more introductory. In that view, the "fixed subspace form" section belongs more with shear matrix. Rgdboer 20:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: shear matrix

message: Today I made the move and repaired most links in WP.
If you find a reference to the old name, you're home now.
The issue of row vector versus column vector continues to stand in the way of a merger with shear matrix; the value of ambidexterity being noted.Rgdboer 02:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved here from Shear (mathematics)

message: Someone using computer 147 94 187 222 located on cote d'azure near Marseille edited this page on 14 October 2008. The edit changed the matrix applications to column vectors. The editor is unidentified and gave no reason for the change; furthermore, there was some loss of sense in the text with the change. Today row vectors have been re-instated.Rgdboer (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to row vectors 

message: In the case of a shear parallel to the x-axis, the matrix is \begin{pmatrix}1 & m\\0 & 1\end{pmatrix} and a shear parallel to the y-axis therefore has the matrix \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0\\m & 1\end{pmatrix}.
This has been corrected :) 
(Reference: http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-MFP4-TEXTBOOK.PDF page 18)
Jambo6c (talk)
: Thank you for your interest Jambo6c, and for your well-intended correction. However, if you check that GCE Math(6360) reference you supplied, it introduces a matrix \begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} by saying that the first column is the image of i and the second column is the image of j. These words show that the authors have in mind the column vector application of a matrix as in
:\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}a \\ c \end{pmatrix}.
:In this article the row vector application is being used, not the column vector application as in the cited text. Therefore the horizontal and vertical descriptions were in fact correct before, so I have restored them. Again, your participation is appreciated.
:: Rgdboer (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matrices swapped 

message: Does ML's nose really need to be picked in an article about math?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.186.149 (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the image was distracting. Replaced it with one from matrix (mathematics)#Linear transformations where the mesh demonstration is used for other transformations.Rgdboer (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  An arrowhead is up the Mona Lisa's nose! 

message: The following was removed today:
:This mapping describes the motion of the fluid in a Couette flow, and the displacement of particles in a solid material under shear strain (which is the deformation that occurs when a metal sheet is being cut by shears, hence the name).
Such deception is to be deplored in this project.Rgdboer (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense 

message: Regarding the following:
:The italics text can be thought of as normal text under a shear.
I think it would be more accurate to describe oblique, not "italic", type as having been sheared, as true italic type uses unique glyphs not producible by shearing. See Italic_type#Oblique_type_compared_to_italics. Oblique type is often used as a surrogate for italic when italic glyphs are unavailable. Iddr (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italic Type or Oblique Type? 

message: The current description in the article would suggest that this is a horizontal shear. But the image name and description call it vertical. Is there some ambiguity here? Otherwise I would request to rename the image (and my derivate of it). Watchduck (quack) 00:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal or vertical shear? 

message: This was suggested more than 15 years ago by , and I think it was correct: there is not a true separation in the study of the two objects, they are just two manifestations of a common thing.  To the extent that there are matrix-specific things to say (e.g., concerning elementary matrices) I don't see why they can't fit into a single article (neither one is very long). JBL (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: The matrix representation of a shear mapping is better understood in the context of the mapping it represents, and indeed neither article is too long. Felix QW (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

text: @JBL – I say go for it! –jacobolus (t) 23:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I very much agree on this also - I had assumed that the matrix was already in the Shear Mapping category, (as the matrix is an expression of the mapping) and only came across the other by accident when searching the site. Blayzeing (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Shear matrix]] into [[Shear mapping]]