Spirographs and the third dimension

January 14, 2010

Toral Spirograph

The basic geometric ideas are straight lines and circles. The famous compass and straight edge.  There is a great deal that can be done with just these, but what if you want something more complex? Spirographs are a very simple idea, let one circle run around a second. You can make the circles as cogs and then you get a classic toy. In mathematics there is a mess of names to describe the curves produced, I shall just list them, understanding the differences is a good way of learning the subject: epicycloid, hypocycloid, epitrochoid, hypotrochoid. It is easy to find lots of examples of these curves online.

So where can we go to generalise. The first trick is to add more circles. Adding circles like this gave one of the first predictive models of the planets as they move in their strange paths across the sky.  Unfortunately if you add enough circles you can actually get any curve you want, so the method could never be disproved, though it was eventually replaced starting with the brilliance of Copernicus who put forward a model of the solar system with the sun at the center. To make images with more than two circle you obviously need a more complicated device as the circles might bump into each other (just think of three cogs). Luckily humanity was up to the challenge and produced the geometric chuck.

Three Circles 2d: (1,7) + (51,10) + (52,10)

Now we want to go further, to try to make similar figures in 3d. The first step is to get tools we can play with more easily than simply describing the geometry. We need a more algebraic form that we can give to the computer, and some way of simply describing the circles. The geometry comes first.  Here are the cogs:

The sizes of the two cogs show how fast they go round each other. In this case, we have a cog with 30 pegs and a cog with 10. The smaller cog will therefore go round 3 times every time it goes once round the big cog.  We now look at the red point on the smaller cog and watch it move along the green line.  How do we model this?

Firstly lets consider circles. We have the circles for the two cogs, but these are not very useful. We can look instead at the grey circle. The centre of the small cog moves round this circle. The black circle on the small cog then shows how the red dot moves. The final position is the position on the two circles added together. To plot the curve we need to consider both circles moving round. If we let the big circle go round once, the small circle will go round four times (once for the large circle rotating and three going round the large circle).  We also need to know the sizes of the two circles, in this case 5 and 1 (I will not give units as only the relative sizes effect the shape).  The path given by these cogs can therefore be encoded as (1,5) + (4,1).

Now recall the parametric formula for a circle: (sin(x),cos(x)), for x between 0 and 2 \pi. This equation allow a computer to draw a circle as we put in values of x and plot the point in 2d. Adding the two circles together therefore we get a parametric formula:

5 (sin(x), (cos(x))+(sin(4x),cos(4x)) = (5 sin(x) + sin (4x), 5 cos(x) + cos (4x))

Note how we would just get the points in the circle repeated four times from the second part (sin(4x),cos(4x)), were it not for the addition. We can therefore consider epicycles as adding circles of different radii, moving at different speeds, together.

Finally we can get to the title and leap to 3d. We can have circles in 3d, so lets add them together. We have an additional problem however. Circles are flat, so the same circle can be put in 3d at different angles, we must also consider the plane in which each circle lies. If we put all circles in the same plane we are stuck in 2d, so where can we put them?

One simple solution is to put the three circles on the faces of a cube:

Cube face epicycles: Left: (2,1)+(17,1)+(23,1) Right: (2,1)+(17,2)+(19,3)

There is something unsatisfying about these curves. For one thing the circles moving on faces reminds more of Lissajous curves rather than spirographs. Although we are adding circles it is hard to see where the cogs might be. Maybe another approach is required. A different approach would be to consider cogs with 45 degree angles. In other words one gear is at right angles to the previous one:

45˚cogs

Each circle other than the first now moves on a plane that itself is moving, staying at right angles to the plane of the previous circle.  It takes a bit of thinking to work out what is happening! So lets cut to two more items from my mathematical museum of dreams:

3d cog spirographs

3d cog spirographs: Left: (1,10)+(20,20)+(61,3) Right: (20,10)+(1,20)+(1,30)+(21,20)

Even better a real version (the work of Richard Grimes):

3d Spirograph by Richard Grimes

[Update: 15/1/10 Daniel Piker has a beautiful animation showing how the circles move for yet another version of the 3d spirograph]

So far we have assumed that we take circles in 2d to circles in 3d. Is this the only analogue of a circle? The circle is a one dimensional object. In two dimensions, therefore it has one less dimension than the space. Perhaps we can consider two dimensional objects when we go to three dimensions. There are two natural two dimensional generalisations of the circle: the sphere and the torus (donut). The torus can be thought of one circle moved round a second, as you can see here the red circles can be moved round the blue circle to make the torus:

As the torus is made up of circles it is perhaps more natural in this setting. We then have five pieces of information to describe a torus. The radii of the two circles and the speed at which we travel round them plus (as with circles) the plane the larger circle lies on.  Playing with these (and again adding two or more tori together gives some very nice objects. I started with one, so here is a second to finish:

Toral Spirograph

Acknowledgements: Inspiration and most of the best ideas on spirographs come from conversations with Richard Grimes. The 3d renderings are made using Blender and LuxRender. Thanks to Ian Hopkinson (@SmallCasserole) for introducing me to this.


The strange quest: Mathematics as Concrete Art

October 10, 2009

I have to confess that this post has not been an easy one to write. I wanted to express some ideas that are difficult to put into words. The central, rather playful, thesis is that pure mathematics itself is a branch of concrete art.

Let me begin with some easy facts. This month, I have had the great fortune to be able to take part in a studio exhibition with a group of constructive/concrete artists, including members of the systems group from the 1960′s.  The exhibition was curated by Trevor Clarke in Peter Lowe’s studio.  As a result I have had a chance to have some fascinating conversations with several artists, including Peter Lowe, Trevor Clarke and Jeffrey Steele.

IMG_0131

Spirograph by Richard Grimes

One goal of the exhibition is to start dialogues between artists and technicians, in the spirit of the studio exhibitions that started the systems group in the 1950′s around Adrian Heath and Kenneth and Mary Martin.  With that in mind I would like to give some of the ideas that emerged for me from the conversations.

Constructive and Concrete art arose from a natural conclusion of the process of abstraction. In the case of concrete art this is explicit and stated in Van Doesberg’s “Manifesto of Concrete Art”. Abstraction began by cutting away the figurative and symbolic content of artworks. As this program progresses more and more is cut away until, in a natural conclusion, one is left with nothing. Nothing is a fascinating concept. It is certainly not a trivial one, as we see with relatively late arrival of zero as a number. It does not, however, give a large space in which ideas can work. An empty canvas is an empty canvas and one ends up unable to tell the profound from the lazy. Concrete art emerges from this vacuum as the attempt to produce artworks that are not empty but have no figurative or symbolic meaning. It seems that this goal can be achieved in two distinct ways. One can either take the subconscious or irrational approach that leads to mysticism or the hyper-rational approach to create small works with their own logic.  For obvious reasons I want to consider the second here.

This would seem to argue for a very subjective art, as we must not only consider different personal opinions about a piece, but the individual world that each piece inhabits. Constructivism is more ambitious than this. The idea of removing figure and symbol is not nihilism, but a desire to address raw or objective beauty. It is of course fully accepted that no such beauty exists. This leads to a strange quest, where the goal is known to be unobtainable.

Being interviewed by Peter Lowe about hyperbolic geometry.

Being interviewed by Peter Lowe about hyperbolic geometry.

I come into this from a different point of view. My art does not contain mathematics in order to have no content, but to communicate mathematics. The mathematics is precisely the symbolic meaning. Yet what is mathematics? My personal definition is that mathematics is any concept that can be considered without reference to the real world. I know that this is an intellectual land grab, but I favour overlapping disciplines anyway. Putting this definition together with the constructivist quest for beauty led to some interesting similarities. Let us consider a parallel history of the two topics.

In the late nineteenth century, while painting was starting the move to abstraction with the work of impressionists and others, mathematics was starting a re-examination of its axiomatic roots. Just as art became more abstract the concepts and fields of mathematics were being cut back to rest on top of the set theory of Cantor and Dedekind.  By the 1930′s the impossibilities inherent in both quests were becoming apparent. A year after Van Doesberg published the “Manifesto of Concrete Art”, Göodel published “On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems”.  This work showed that whatever axioms one considered (that allow arithmetic) there would always be holes, statements that the axioms did not say were true or false, and one could never be sure that there was not a contradiction a statement both true and false. This was the end of the dream of a perfect mathematical machine. Pure mathematics thus joined in the strange quest, seeking patterns and structure without the possibility of obtaining a final goal.

Work by Gary Woodley

Work by Gary Woodley

In fact by the 1940′s the two subjects were recognising their similarities. Hardy published “A mathematician’s Apology” in 1940 that claimed that mathematics was an art form. With the humility that only a Cambridge academic can feel for his own place in the world he declared:

“A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.”

The quest of a mathematician, to Hardy, was to find beauty and truth, yet without defining exactly what he meant by either. This bears a striking similarity to the vision of constructivism that I described above.  It is no surprise therefore that, perhaps unaware that mathematics had been declared an art, in 1949 Max Bill considered “The Mathematical Approach in Contemporary Art”.

I want to reverse Bill and consider that perhaps the mathematical structure itself, from gauge theory to groups, from motives to matrices from the games of Conway to the technical depth of Grothendieck, stopping on the way to take in the Hopf fibration and bifurcation, the Penrose tiling, and the 57-cell, is simply one giant work of concrete art put together by a cast of thousands.  An edifice built with some logical consistency on the Zermelo-Frankael axioms and the fudge factor axiom of choice.

So here’s to everyone pursuing the strange quest in the belief that the universe has an inexhaustible supply of secrets, and there will always be new beauty to be found even in some of its simplest corners.

Works by Trevor Clarke and John Bremner

Works by Trevor Clarke and John Bremner

The show

A studio presentation linking a selection of historical and contemporary autonomous works with a focus on modular investigations including:

Alexander Rodchenko*
Anthony Hill
Dirk Verhaegen
Edmund Harriss
Freddy Van Parys
Gary Woodley
Getulio Alviani
Jean Spencer
John Bremner
Kenneth Martin
Mary Martin
Peter Lowe
Richard Grimes
Trevor Clarke

Curated by Trevor Clarke in response to an invitation from Peter Lowe to stage a studio exhibition.

*reconstructions


Building Mathematics: Sculpture system No. 5

April 25, 2009

[Update 15/1/10: More pictures (in the snow!) now up]
[Update 16/3/10: A second sculpture built in Newcastle]
[Update 13/5/10: Volcanic background]

Can you get children and young people to build mathematical scultptures in their own time?

Last week I did. We created this strange object in the lava of a volcanic island on the boundary between America and Europe.

Crowdsourced mathematical art

Crowdsourced mathematical art

The design, Sculpture System No. 5, by Richard Grimes,  and far more details of construction are available here.  The goal is to open this idea to the crowd and see where it is taken, crowdsourcing art.  There is already one other write up. Without further ado, here is my take on events.

If you have never heard of Fab Labs take a look, they are amazing. I came across one by chance on the small island of Heimaey in the North Atlantic.  Luckily for me the guy in charge, Smári McCarthy had a liking for mathematics and asked if I could teach something to the people using the facilities.  When you get an opportunity like that to try to corrupt kids into mathematics you cannot turn it down.  Well I cannot.

The question was what to do? Tilings are nice and produce great images, but they are a little flat. Building something in three dimensions is far more exciting.  The idea that came to me was to make a giant version of Polydron.  If you have not come across this wonderful product look into it now, especially if you are a teacher. It works best if it just left around so people can start to play on their own terms.  Even primary school children can pick it up, play and discover, yet it also holds the interest of many research geometers.

The essence of polydron is regular shapes hinging together. With these you can build anything. I started sketching some ideas in my head, but I am not a natural at building objects.  Luckily one of my inspirations for the polydron idea was on hand. My friend Richard Grimes had been working independantly on similar systems and deltahedra for many years, creating everal sculptural systems, individual objects that can be put together in many different forms. He is also a great craftsman, so he was able to create a design that was simple, elegant and beautiful, not to mention easy to put together. He named it “Sculpture system No. 5″.

The basic tile

The basic tile

The question was what could we build that was artistically satisfying to me, taught some maths and involved people in the design rather than just as donkey work for the construction. As I am writing this in hindsight, of course these are also goals that were achieved!

For constraints we obviously want to minimise the number of shapes used. The simplest shapes are triangles, the polyhedra built from them deltahedra. I decided that twenty was a good number, it is the number you need for a regular icosahedron. The next step was to get people involved. Polydron is the natural tool for this, and as soon as I brought it to the lab it was sucked up, without even being pointed out to people. However to give some freedom to the construction the common maths art fare of highly symmetric figures would not work.  There are not enough of them. In addition, because of the symmetry, they offer the same view from many directions, which is a little boring.  So I went to the other extreme. Build figure with no symmetry. With 20 tiles this is not easy, and spotting symmetries is a great exercise.  So several groups of children took up the project and we had four different designs.  All of which I would have been happy to build.  Before construction everyone voted on the final design.

We then fired up the machines and started cutting the tiles, I will let pictures tell the rest of the story:

Cutting things out

Cutting things out

Painting the tiles

Painting the tiles

A basic hinge

A basic hinge

Construction

Construction

Complete!

Complete!

A ghost in the dark

A ghost in the dark

Next morning

Next morning


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers