Anda di halaman 1dari 13

TOPICS ON SPHERE DISTRIBUTIONS [Latest version of 1998/02/26 by Dave Rusin,

This file is available by FTP (or gopher) at but I recommend instead this URL which gives links to some related areas: If you're reading this, send me your comments and suggestions.] I'm writing this FAQ because of the frequency with which topics related to this subject appear in the USENET newsgroups such as sci.math. This isn't really my main area of interest so some of the comments are pretty simple-minded; if you are a power user in need of guidance, you should look elsewhere for suggestions, while conversely if you can offer expert guidance I'd like to incorporate it here. Some of the material already here is lifted from other sources; whenever possible I try to assign the blame^H^H^H^H^H credit to someone else. The overall main topic is the question of how to place points on the sphere, or how to divide up the sphere into regions, in a regular way. Along the way we'll talk about map-making, Platonic solids, and so on. The following questions will be addressed (other suggestions welcome): Q0. Notation Q1. What does it mean to place N points "evenly" on a sphere? Q2. Are there some values of N which are better than others? Q3. How can you describe locations on a sphere, anyway? Q4. Can you give a quick approximation to a good distribution? (*) Q5. How can we improve an approximate solution? (*) Q6. What if I want randomly to place points with a uniform distribution? Q7. Can this be generalized to higher-dimensional spheres? Q8. How is this related to collections of linear subspaces? Q9. Where can I get the coordinates of the vertices of the Platonic solids? Q10. How come this sounds like sphere packing? (*) Fetch the accompanying file sphere.bas for a BASIC program demonstrating these techniques. Other topics possibly to include in the future: What's the formula for the volume of the n-ball? n-sphere? What's this I hear about exotic differentiable structures on spheres? Can you describe projective space and its relation to spheres? What are sources for further information? If you need some information about these topics, let me know; that will be my clue that it's time to add something to the FAQ. At some point I may separate this into a 2-sphere FAQ and a hi-dimensionalsphere FAQ. If this seems important, let me know and I'll move it up my priority list. dave ============================================================================== ANSWERS TO THE FREQUENTLY-ASKED QUESTIONS ============================================================================== Q0. Notation Just in case there is some confusion I'll informally make the definitions I'll need later. EUCLIDEAN SPACE (or n-space, or R^n) is the set of n-tuples of

real numbers. We will use the ordinary metric (distance function). Note that we commonly speak of ourselves as living in 3-space. The SPHERE of radius r in R^n is the set of points whose coordinates satisfy x1^2+...+xn^2=r^2; the unit sphere is the sphere of radius 1. Note that I am explicitly assuming all spheres are centered at the origin. The interior of the sphere is called the BALL in R^n; it is the set of points of distance less than r from the origin. (The ball and the sphere are disjoint; their union is sometimes called the n-DISK .) If not otherwise specified we are usually referring to the sphere or ball in R^3. The DIMENSION of a (reasonable) subset of R^n is the number of independent directions one can travel in the set. For example, in the ordinary sphere motion at most points is a combination of movements East and North, so the sphere in R^3 is two-dimensional (not three). The ball in R^n is n-dimensional. Note that the circle is the sphere (of dimension 1) in R^2; the sphere in R^1 is two points (+1 and -1). We often write S^n for the n-dimensional sphere (in R^(n+1).) A LINE is the set of multiples of a point or vector (other than the origin). Note in particular that I am referring only to lines thru the origin. A PLANE is the set of linear combinations of two non-collinear vectors. (Don't call it a SURFACE ; that's usually understood to be anything 2-dimensional, including planes, the 2-sphere, paraboloids, and so on.) Likewise we can take any k linearly independent vectors in R^n and look at all linear combinations of them; this set is called a LINEAR SUBSPACE of R^n and is of dimension k. When k=n-1, the set is called a HYPERPLANE. The focus of this document is on S^2 but from time to time I consider greater generality when it is easy to do so. ============================================================================== Q1. What does it mean to place N points "evenly" on a sphere? Well, what do you want it to mean? Several valid interpretations exist; they lead to slightly different distributions of points. If you want all distances between distinct points in the set to be equal, you can have at most 4 points. Indeed, it's easy to see any 3 equally spaced points mark an equilateral triangle and any 4 must then mark a regular triangular pyramid. You can have a 5th point equidistant from the first 3 (glue two such pyramids face to face) but then the 4th and 5th points are too far apart. But everyone agrees that the vertices of a regular polygon are equally spaced in S^1, so there must be another definition we have in mind. One can ask that every point have some property, such as being equidistant from its nearest neighbor. Such distributions exist -- for example, one can space the points equally along the equator of the sphere. Still, this is not likely to be what we have in mind when we ask for a uniform distribution of the points. One might ask that the points be arranged "symmetrically" on the sphere in some way; in Q3 we'll discuss how to do this, but true symmetry is available only for a few values of N. It is more helpful to measure uniformity not point-by-point but by considering some aggregate measure of the dispersion. For example, we could let D be the minimum distance between any pair of distinct points in the set. This

provides a measurement of how good or poor a distribution we've chosen. For example, four points equally spaced on the equator have D=sqrt(2)=1.41... whereas four points on the pyramid have a larger D=(2/3)sqrt(6)=1.63... So we might ask for an arrangement on the sphere which maximizes D. In general this statement of the problem guarantees a solution exists. Let D be any continuous function of N points on the sphere; then since the sphere is compact, so is the Cartesian product of N copies of it, so that D is a continuous function on a compact set, and so achieves a maximum and a minimum. If D is chosen intelligently, the values of the variables that lead to an extreme value of D will give an arrangement of points which is arguably "uniform". There are some drawbacks with this perspective. For one, the extreme values of D will be attained more than once. (Certainly if D depends symmetrically on the points, any permutation of the N variables will provide another occurrence of the extreme value. Indeed, it is reasonable to consider only functions defined on the symmetric product S^N(S) =(SxSx...xS)/Sym_n rather than on the Cartesian product (SxSx...xS) of N copies of the sphere S) If D is invariant under rotations of the sphere, which is reasonable, then in order to hope to have an isolated extreme configuration, one needs to hold one point fixed at, say, the North pole, and to allow another point to vary only along a meridian attached to the pole. Another obstacle is that there are several natural choices for D, and an arrangement of points which is optimal for one such function need not be optimal for another. Here are some natural choices for D: D1=min_i min_{j<>i} dist( Pi, Pj ) (the function considered above) D2=(1/N) Sum_i min_{j<>i} dist( Pi, Pj ) ("average dist to a neighbor") D3=Sum_i Sum_{i<>j} 1/dist( Pi, Pj ) ("potential energy") If an electron is placed at each of the points, D3 is the sum of the electrostatic potentials at these N electrons; they would tend to spread apart if possible so as to minimize D3. Finally, there is the question of how one would compute an optimal configuration once a decision is made of how optimality would be measured. If D is a differentiable function of the coordinates of the points, then the problem can be solved with Lagrange multipliers, but this is hopelessly cumbersome for any but the smallest values of N and the simplest functions D. Moreover, some of the most natural functions D to take are not differentiable everywhere. We shall return to this in Q5. ============================================================================== Q2. Are there some values of N which are better than others? You bet! As has been pointed out above, values of N <= 4 have very natural solutions. In addition, there are solutions for some N related to the Platonic solids. Here's why. Suppose we had an arrangement of N points with the following property: given any two points there is a rotation of the sphere which (1) carries the one to the other and in the process (2) carries each of the points in the distribution to some other point in the set (possibly itself). These rotations generate a group (a subgroup of SO(3) ) of permutations of the N points; since the only rotation of the sphere which fixes two points not antipodal to each other is the identity (the trivial rotation), the group of all these rotations is finite (unless N=2).

Well, as it happens, there are not many finite subgroups of SO(3). First, there are all the cyclic subgroups which are sets of rotations with a common axis, as well as the dihedral groups which adjoin one rotation about an axis perpendicular to this one. If this is the symmetry group of your arrangement of points, then all your points lie on one circle (two circles, if you have a dihedral group and a non-equatorial arrangement). The remaining finite subgroups of SO(3) are the symmetry group of the pyramid (isomorphic to Alt(4), it has order 12), the symmetry group of the cube (it's the full symmetric group of order 24, permuting the 4 diagonals) and the symmetry group of the dodecahedron (the symmetric group of order 120). The octahedron is dual to the cube and the icosahedron is dual to the dodecahedron, while the tetrahedron (pyramid) is self-dual. (Here "dual" means vertices of one are midpoints of faces of the other, so dual polyhedra have the same symmetry group.) (For a full analysis of the Platonic solids, see Coxeter, "Introduction to Geometry", Wiley (NY) 1969.) It's not quite true that a set of points permuted by one of these three groups has to be the set of vertices of a Platonic solid (as a glance at a soccer ball [non-US: football] will show). However, a firm insistence that there be sufficient rotations to carry each vertex to any other limits the number of points to 120. So there are only finitely many non-circular arrangements with this high degree of symmetry. Of course, you could relax the condition that there be rotations preserving the set of points which permute the points transitively (any point can be carried to any other one). For example, you could begin with one of the Platonic solids and mark off, say, the midpoint of each edge as well as each of the vertices. (The former need to be scaled of course to make them lie on the sphere.) There is a large collection of figures that exhibit some partial symmetry. In general, the more symmetry you require, the fewer the number of values of N which you can expect to place so symmetrically. If you are working with spheres of a higher dimension, there are more finite groups of rotations; the orbits of a point under these groups will give sets of points which could reasonably be called "uniform". Indeed, given any set of points on a sphere (or any other metric space) you can define the Voronoi region of each point to be the set of elements in the sphere closer to that point than to any other. Then if the rotation group acts transitively on the points, it provides enough motions to show that all the Voronoi regions are congruent. A couple of theorems are relevant here, I guess: first, given any group G there is a group of rotations in SO(n) isomorphic to G as long as n is sufficiently large. Second, given any n there may be infinitely many finite subgroups in SO(n) (as the cyclic subgroups of SO(3) demonstrate) but there are only finitely many quotient groups G / Z(G); that is, the G will have an (Abelian) center of bounded index. Departing from these geometric considerations, we will see in Q4 that some approximate constructions of uniform arrangements are a little easier for some N's than others, so if you have some freedom in the selection of N you can make your job a little easier. ==============================================================================

Q3. How can you describe locations on a sphere, anyway? Clearly any point on a sphere also sits in the ambient Euclidean space, and so may be specified by its ordinary Cartesian coordinates. But these coordinates are bound by the equation of the sphere, and it is sometimes preferable to use coordinates which are unbound. Since the sphere in R^n is (n-1)-dimensional, it is natural to try to parameterize your position with just n-1 variables. This is well known on the ordinary 2-sphere, where we use latitude and longitude. Such parameterizations are possible, although there are some nettlesome points to keep in mind. Ideally, a parameterization of the n-sphere would be a function P defined on a subset of Euclidean space R^n and taking values in the n-sphere, having the following properties: 1) P is continuous (i.e. a continuous change in R^n should yield a continuous change on the sphere. Equivalently, P should be given by (n+1) continuous coordinate functions whose squares sum to 1. ) 2) P is one-to-one: a point on the sphere shouldn't show up more than once during the parameterization. 3) P has a continuous inverse F, that is, a coordinate function which determines for each point in the sphere what values of the parameters are needed to map to that point. The existence of such an F implies P would be onto. 4) P (and/or F) preserves important geometric information like angles or areas (or the n-dimensional equivalents). 5) P (and/or F) is differentiable. Unfortunately, for topological reasons there can be no function P meeting even just (1) (2) and (3). This is well-known to map-makers trying the case n=2: any map of the earth's surface has to rip the surface somewhere. However, there are functions which meet some of these conditions; various ones are appropriate under different conditions. 1. If you only want to parameterize _part_ of the sphere, you can get away with a simple projection: use F(x1,...,x{n+1})=(x1,...,xn) and P(x1,...,xn)=(x1,...,xn, sqrt(1-x1^2-...-xn^2) ). Use the negative square root to parameterize the bottom half of the sphere. If you need to have a parameterization valid a neighborhood of some point on the equator, have F drop out some other coordinate (which P puts back in with a similar square root formula). 2. You can get a correspondence P mapping onto all of the sphere except one point (say, the North pole "NP"); indeed you can define P : R^n --> S-{NP} and an inverse map F going the other way which are continuous, differentiable, one-to-one, and onto. Do this with stereographic projection: place the plane thru the equator of the sphere and draw rays emanating from the North Pole and pointing downward some non-zero amount. Each such ray intersects both the sphere and the plane in one point, and all the points in S-{NP} and R^n are so met. These rays then set up the one-to-one correspondence. The formulas are P(x1,...,xn) = t.(x1,...,xn,0) + (1-t)(0,...,0,1) F(x1,...,x{n+1})= r . (x1, ..., xn) (where (0,...,0,1) is the North Pole on the n-sphere in R^{n+1}.) Here t is chosen to make the distance from the origin be 1 : t=2/(1+x1^2+...+xn^2). Also r is chosen to invert the first formula: r=1/(1-x{n+1})

These formulas are the basis of the polar projection used by map-makers. 3. If it is necessary to have a parameterization which preserves area (or its n-dimensional equivalent), this coordinate system F can be modified by adjusting the function r=r(x{n+1}). Here's how we decide what the right function r is. Consider the set of points in S^n with x{n+1}=a. This is an (n-1) sphere with radius h=sqrt(1-a^2). Then for small e the set of points in S^n with x{n+1} lying between a and a+e is a slightly bent version of the product of an (n-1)-sphere of radius h and an interval of length e.sqrt[1+(dh/da)^2] = e/sqrt(1-a^2). The function F above carries it to another such product, but this time the radius is z(a)=r(a)h(a) and the length of the interval is about e.z'(a). Since F changed the radius by a factor z(a)/h, the (n-1)-volume will change by a factor of [z(a)/h]^(n-1). If we want to keep the n-volume unchanged, we need the ratio of the lengths of the interval, roughly z'(a) sqrt(1-a^2), to be the reciprocal of this, that is, we need z'(a).z(a)^(n-1) = h^(n-1)/sqrt(1-a^2) = sqrt(1-a^2)^(n-2). Solving this differential equation shows we need r(a) = z(a)/h(a) = [1/sqrt(1-a^2)].[n.integral(1-a^2)^(n/2-1) da]^(1/n) (As z(-1)=0, the integral should be selected to vanish at a=-1.) So r(x)=[1/sqrt(1-x^2)].[n. integral_{-1}^{x} (1-a^2)^(n/2 - 1) da]^(1/n). For n=2, this gives r(a)=sqrt(2/(1-a)), i.e. z(a)=sqrt(2*(1+a)). In particular, this will map the whole sphere to the disk of radius 2, whose area is then 4pi (the area of the sphere) as it should be. 4. There are also trigonometric parameterizations. For example, it is easy to parameterize the 1-sphere (the circle) with a parameter t using P(t) = (cos(t), sin(t)). Here if we really want P to be one-to-one we need to restrict to an interval such as [0, 2 pi). This is then indeed one-to-one, onto, and continuous (even differentiable) and as a bonus preserves lengths. But there can be no continuous inverse function. F(x,y)=arctan(y/x) will do if branches of the arctan function are chosen appropriately, but no set of choices can be made consistently in all quadrants of S^1. Still, this parameterization is useful, and admits generalization. The function P(u,v) = (cos(u)cos(v), cos(u)sin(v), sin(u)) is also differentiable, maps onto S^2, and is one-to-one on the set (-pi/2,pi/2)x[0,2 pi). (The image of P on this set misses the poles, however.) This P has an inverse in the sense we had on the circle: (u,v)=F(x,y,z)=(arctan(z/sqrt(x^2+y^2)), arctan(y/x) ). This is the ordinary parameterization of the sphere in terms of latitude (u) and longitude (v). By computing the Jacobian for the change of variable to spherical coordinates, we see that this parameterization changes areas by a factor of |cos(u)|. This may be generalized to the n-sphere: use the function P_n, where P_n(u1,...,un) = ( cos(un)*P_{n-1}(u1,...,u{n-1}) , sin(un) ) (for each un in (-pi/2, pi/2), the parameterization traces out an (n-1)-sphere using P_(n-1). ); n-dimensional volume is reduced by a factor of | cos(u2) . cos(u3)^2 . ... . cos(un)^(n-1) |. (I'll discuss another interpretation of this product in Q6.) These parameterizations form the basis of various cylindrical maps of the earth (rectangular maps excluding the poles in which the left and

right edges represent the same points on earth). The Mercator projection is chosen to remove the distortion of angles; thus (locally) the Mercator projection gives an accurate representation of shapes. But the correction used is precisely the inverse of what is needed to correct the |cos(u)| change in area, so that the Mercator projection is wildly inaccurate at portraying areas (especially near the poles). I believe the 'Peters projection' is the name of the map which corrects areas (but which amplifies the distortions of angles, and thus of shapes). 5. If the trigonometric expressions are too computation-intensive, one can use a parameterization requiring only rational functions. Note first that the circle may be parameterized using a variation of stereographic projection: P(t) = ( -2t/(1+t^2) , (1-t^2)/(1+t^2) ) F(x,y)= (y-1) /x Thus, we can replace all sine/cosine pairs with these two functions. For example, the 2-sphere may be parameterized: P(u,v)=( 4uv/[(1+u^2)(1+v^2)], -2u(1-v^2)/[(1+u^2)(1+v^2)], (1-u^2)/(1+u^2) ) F(x,y,z)= ( (z-1)/sqrt(x^2+y^2), (y-1)/x ) For further details, consult an advanced calculus text; look up the change-of-variables theorem, particularly spherical coordinates and the role of the Jacobian (derivative) in determining areas. [I'll add a reference to the mathematics of map-making as soon as I find one.] ============================================================================== Q4. Can you give a quick approximation to a good distribution? Of course. Mark off K equal segments along a meridian using K-1 points plus the two endpoints. These segments have length pi/K. If you swing this around the sphere, you'll mark off K-1 circles. Now, in spherical coordinates, these circles are the points with ui=-pi/2 +i*(pi/K), where i = 1, 2, ..., K-1. They have radius cos(ui), hence length 2pi*cos(ui). Thus you can divide them into about [2pi*cos(ui)]/[pi/K] segments as long as the segments on the meridian. So take Mi to be an integer near 2*K*cos( -pi/2 + i*(pi/K)) = 2*K*sin( i * (pi/K) ), and mark off points that have u=ui and v=j*(2*pi/Mi) for j = 1, 2, ..., Mi. This will give you 2+Sum{i=1,...,K-1} M_i points on the sphere. To within an error less than K-1, this is the same as 2+Sum 2*K*sin( i* pi/K ) = 2 + 2*K*cot( pi / 2K ). For large values of K, this is about (4/pi) K^2. (With an area of 4pi on the whole sphere, this leaves an area of (pi/K)^2 around each point, which is not surprising since initially the points are about pi/K apart on a roughly square grid). If you have the luxury of placing _approximately_ N points on the sphere, begin with K an integer roughly equal to sqrt((pi/4)N), and compute the number of points which would be placed with the method above; you should get about N points. Here are the values I get for the first few K using round() to convert to integers when necessary: for K=1, N=2; for K=2, N=6; then for subsequent K (thru K=22), I get N= 12,22,34,46,82,106,128,156,184,214,248,288,328,368,412,460,510,562,616,... Notice that the first layer around the north pole has about 2Ksin(pi/K) points. For K large, this is about 2*pi = 6.28, so we would take M1=6, and arrange the first circle of points in the "kissing pennies" pattern.

This arrangement of points on the sphere has an obvious regularity, but the points are not spaced as far apart as possible by any reasonable measure -- for example, roughly sqrt(K/5) of the rows nearest the equator will have about the same number of points in them, roughly in a square-looking grid; clearly a honeycomb distribution will place the same number of points with a greater spacing. This leads to question Q5. I have included as a separate file a BASIC program which carries out this distribution. In view of the previous paragraph, this code can be improved when N is large, but I'm not really sure of an optimal way to do so, so I won't. ============================================================================== Q5. How can we improve an approximate solution? If the approximate solution in Q4 is insufficient, you'll have to decide why. This returns you to the discussion on Q1. Let me assume that there is some function D of the positions of the points which you wish to minimize or maximize. (Replacing D by -D as necessary we may assume D is to be maximized.) The method outlined in Q4 should give a low value of D. If D is differentiable, you can use the method of gradients: you adjust the positions of the points in the direction of the gradient. Professionals in numerical analysis should scoff at this naive approach -- for one thing, this method assumes that the critical point is an isolated minimum; also, it is not clear just how far in the direction of the gradient to proceed so as not to overshoot the region of convergence; moreover, once in the region of convergence, the rate of convergence can be quite slow. However, in practice I have found that if you have a moderate number of points to place and you are not too demanding in your search for an absolute minimum, this method works quickly enough if you begin with a moderately uniform distribution of points. (I would appreciate learning of improvements from numerical analysts.) Here is what the method of gradients means in more detail. If you have parameterized the sphere and expressed D as a function of N sets of the parameters, compute the partial derivatives of D with respect to all these variables, and then evaluate at the present values of the parameters. Add to each of the parameters a small multiple of this partial derivative. If instead you have calculated D as a function of the Cartesian coordinates of the N points, you need to take the portion of the gradient which points in a direction tangent to the sphere. In practice, this can be accomplished by adjusting all coordinates of the points as in the preceding paragraph, then rescaling each point's coordinates to ensure the vector is of length one. There is the possibility of creep to be concerned with. That is, it is possible that with each iteration the function D is not improved; rather, the points have simply all rotated somewhat around the sphere. Under the assumption that D is invariant under rotations, there is no need to allow this kind of motion. One can negate this possibility by rotating the sphere after each iteration so that one point (say the North pole) is returned to its previous position and another point is returned to the meridian it was on previously. I have put a BASIC program alongside this file to illustrate these

computations. Since the function D I used polls each pair of points to find out the repulsion between them, the running time for one iteration is proportional to N^2. Thus I hardly recommend it for values of N above a couple of hundred if you are using, say, a personal computer. ============================================================================== Q6. What if I want randomly to place points with a uniform distribution? This is perhaps the easiest way: randomly select the Cartesian coordinates independently. Toss out any sets of coordinates which take you outside the sphere (and, should you be so unlucky, any occurrences of the origin). Scale all the remaining points to push them out to the sphere. Another easy way is to use the area-preserving parameterizations of Q3. If you use the cartographer's polar projection (the third parameterization in Q3), you need only select random points in the disk with uniform distribution there, then map each of the selected points onto the sphere. Of course, you'll never hit the North Pole this way, but that event was supposed to occur with probability zero anyway. (The simplest way to select random points in the disk is just to pick the n coordinates separately, each randomly in [-1,1]. Then simply discard the n-tuples not lying in the disk.) You can also use the trigonometric parameterizations of the sphere (the cartographer's cylindrical projections): if you are placing points randomly, the probability that you will have to consider one of the points where the parameterization fails to be one-to-one, or continuous, say, is zero. However, you need to exercise some care for spheres of dimension greater than 1 since in that case, the trig parameterizations are not area-preserving. For example, if you use the spherical coordinates above to parameterize the 2-sphere, and select u and v randomly in their respective intervals, you'll find too many points chosen near the poles. This is because the sets of points with u fixed near +-pi/2 are only _small_ circles; it is not appropriate to select these u's as frequently. Indeed, the frequency with which a given u is selected should be proportional to the circumference of that circle, which is 2pi |cos(u)|. More generally, one can randomly select points in the n-sphere by randomly selecting the n spherical parameters, but always remembering to select each u_i with a frequency proportional to the (i-1)-dimensional measure of the the set of points where u_i is a constant. Fortunately, we know that this set is just an (i-1) sphere whose radius is cos(u_i) and whose measure is then proportional to cos(u_i)^(i-1). Thus the problem of random point selection on the sphere reduces to this question: how can one select values of a variable u from an interval [a,b] so as to achieve a given frequency distribution f? One way is to let C be the cumulative distribution function, C(u)=integral_a^u f(t)dt. (This is the probability that the chosen value will be between a and u.) For then if G is the inverse of this function, then we may select x randomly with uniform distribution across [0,1] and let y=G(x). This is a random variable whose distribution function looks like this: Prob( h < y < h+e ) = Prob( h < G(x) < h+e ) = Prob(C(h) < x < C(h+e) ) which is roughly = Prob( C(h) < x < C(h)+C'(h)e )

using differentials. Well, if x is selected with uniform distribution, this probability is the length of that interval, namely C'(h)e = f(h).e since C'=f. But to say that this original probability is roughly f(h)e is precisely to say that the distribution function for the variable y is f. With the frequency distributions at hand, this is not difficult. The first coordinate u1 is selected uniformly in [0,2 pi). The second coordinate u2 is to have a probability density function cos(u_2) /2 on (-pi/2, pi/2) [The extra factor of 1/2 is just a scaling needed to ensure that the cumulative distribution C(u) ends with C(pi/2) = 1.0]. Indeed, C(u) = (sin(u)+1)/2 has inverse G(w)= arcsin(2w-1), so one can get points uniformly on the 2-sphere using the usual trig parameterization with v selected uniformly in [0, 2pi) and u=arcsin(2w-1) where w is selected uniformly in [0,1]. The Cartesian coordinates are then (sqrt(4x-4x^2).cos(v), sqrt(4x-4x^2).sin(v), 2x-1). With a slight change of variables, this can be viewed as the equal-area cylindrical projection in cartography: you can parameterize the surface of the 2-sphere with coordinates x in [-1, 1] and v in [0,2 pi) in such a way as to preserve area by mapping (x,v) to (sqrt(1-x^2) cos(v), sqrt(1-x^2) sin(v), x). This is the projection which carries points on the sphere (minus the poles) to points on a cylinder wrapped around the equator by shining a light straight out from the axis through the sphere to the cylinder. On the 3-sphere (and higher) the next variable is selected as u3=G(x3) where x3 is selected uniformly in [0,1] and G is the inverse of the function C(u) = (1/2)(u+pi/2+sin(u)cos(u)). The next variable after that is selected similarly using C(u) = ( cos(u) - sin^3(u)/3 - 1/3). And so on. Observe that if C can be computed, it is not solve for its inverse G explicitly. Instead, y=G(x) may be written x=C(y), an equation to is known. This is easily handled with Newton's necessary to be able to each of the computations of be solved for y when x method.

I believe a method of generating numbers randomly with a given distribution is treated in Knuth's Art of Computer Programming. ============================================================================== Q7. Can this be generalized to higher-dimensional spheres? I have melded this into the previous questions -- anyone reading this who can think of questions particular to higher dimensions should let me know what ought to go in here. ============================================================================== Q8. How is this related to collections of linear subspaces? I put this question here because someone asked me recently about how to parameterize the set of planes and other linear subspaces of Euclidean space. I can't quite remember the question, so I'll not make an answer at this point. One comment to make is that points on the sphere (or, more precisely, pairs of antipodal points) correspond to lines through the origin in R^n. The planes in R^n correspond similarly to great circles (circles of maximal circumference). If n=3, the planes can be parameterized in a natural way by finding the line perpendicular to them. If you

trace these correspondences through, you'll see that there is a natural one-to-one correspondence between great circles on the 2-sphere and pairs of antipodal points. You can get the circle from the points as the set of points equidistant from the pair; you can get the pair from the circle as the only points equidistant from all elements of the circle. More generally, there is a correspondence between the k-dimensional and the n-k dimensional subspaces of R^n. The family of all k-dimensional subspaces in R^n (or n-k dimensional subspaces) is known as the Grassmannian manifold; it is indeed a manifold and has dimension k(n-k). When k=1 or k=n-1, this is also known as projective n-1 space; there is a two-to-one mapping S^{n-1} --> RP^{n-1} which simply sends a point to the line it's on (this map sends antipodal points of S^{n-1} to the same element of RP^{n-1} of course. This map turns S^{n-1} into a two-fold cover of RP^{n-1}; for n>2 this is the universal covering of projective space.) This material is often treated in graduate topology courses, particularly in a discussion on vector bundles in an algebraic topology course. You may wish to consult Milnor's book "Characteristic Classes" (Princeton Univ Press), which is however not elementary. ============================================================================== Q9. Where can I get the coordinates of the vertices of the Platonic solids? There are 5 Platonic solids. An interesting but brief discussion (with pictures) may be found, for example, in Gallian's "Contemporary Abstract Algebra", D C Heath 1986. Solid Tetrahedron Cube Octahedron Dodecahedron Icosahedron Number of Vertices 4 8 6 20 12 # Edges 6 12 12 30 30 # Faces 4 6 8 12 20

Notice the duality between certain pairs. Also note that V-E+F=2 in all cases. This is deep, and may be thought of as the first fact in homology theory. I will give coordinates of these points (and in indication of the rest of the structure) in the most compact way I know; if you want the coordinates so that, for example, the North Pole is one of the vertices, you'll have to rotate the coordinates (the BASIC program I include has in it an application of this procedure.) I have scaled the coordinates so that they lie in the unit sphere, but this is not always the prettiest form. I have however set it up so that the coordinates of the dual pairs reflect this duality. Tetrahedron The points are (0,0,1), (1/3)(2sqrt(2), 0, -1), and both points (1/3)(-sqrt(2), +-sqrt(6), -1). All pairs are joined by an edge; all triples (sets of three points) lie on a common face. Cube The 8 points are (+-c, +-c, +-c) where c=1/sqrt(3) and the plus/minus signs may be chosen independently. The 12 edges join pairs of points which have 2 coordinates equal. The 6 faces are quadruples of points for which one of the coordinates is

constant. Octahedron The 6 vertices are of three types: (+-1, 0, 0) (0, +-1, 0) and (0, 0, +-1). The 12 edges join all pairs except the three pairs of antipodal points. The 8 faces consist of all triples which include one point of each type. Icosahedron (using some information in a post by The 12 vertices are of three types: (+-a, +-b, 0), (0, +-a, +-b), and (+-b, 0, +-a), where a=sqrt((5+sqrt(5))/10) and b=sqrt((5-sqrt(5))/10) The 30 edges come in two flavors: there are 24 edges joining points of different types such that their common non-zero coordinate is of the same sign (e.g., (a, -b, 0) and (0, -a, b) have negative 2nd coordinates). There are also 6 edges joining pairs of points of the same type for which the sign in front of the a are equal (e.g. (a, b, 0) and (a, -b, 0).) The 20 faces are also of two general sorts: There are 8 triplets consisting of one point of each type such that whenever two of the points have a common non-zero coordinate, those coordinates are of the same sign. Also, there are 12 triplets which contain two points of the same type having the same sign 'X' in front of the a, and a third point having 'X'.b in that coordinate (e.g., given the two points at the end of the last paragraph, the third point on a face with them is (b,0,+-a). ) Dodecahedron: This is dual to the icosahedron I adapted these coordinates from a post by David Seal. The 20 vertices include 8 vertices (+-c, +-c, +-c) (c=1/sqrt(3)) and 12 of the forms (+-x, +-y, 0), (0, +-x, +-y), (+-y, 0, +-x) where x=(sqrt(5)+1)/(2*sqrt(3)) and y=(sqrt(5)-1)/(2*sqrt(3)). I will leave it to the reader to dualize the construction of the edges and vertices of the icosahedron to get the edges and faces of the dodecahedron. (That means I started it but it took too long. The edges are the pairs of points of distance sqrt( (2/9)(sqrt(5)-1) ) from each other.) ============================================================================== Q10. How come this sounds like sphere packing? Very observant of you! Actually, there are a lot of questions whose answers sound like an enumeration of the Platonic solids. Here is one way to see a connection. Suppose you have a packing of Euclidean space with spheres of radius 1. There is a way to get evenly spaced points on the unit sphere from it. For any r>0 let a_r be the number of spheres in the packing which are contained in the ball of radius r centered at the origin. Note that if V is the volume of the ball of radius 1 in R^n, then the ball of radius r has volume V.r^n, so we have an upper bound of a_r <= r^n. The limit of a_r to r^n as r increases without bound is the 'packing density' d. Thus for large r we have a_r is roughly d r^n. In particular, there are roughly d.n.r^(n-1) balls which fit in the sphere of radius r+1 but not in the sphere of radius r. If we take the centers of just these balls and scale them back just a bit, we will get roughly d.n.r^(n-1) points on the sphere of radius r. Since the sphere centers are of distance at least 2 from each other, the points on the sphere will be almost 2 units apart, or further.

Scaling this picture by a factor of r, we get about d.n.r^(n-1) points on the unit sphere, with distances between them not much less than 2/r. This is not really better than we achieved with the method in Q4, but it has the advantage that we can also place points on the sphere corresponding to spheres in the packing which, for example, fit in the ball of radius r+1.5, or r+2. Possibly these points, when projected to the sphere of radius r, will lie close to other points already placed, but then again, maybe not. It is not possible, so far as I know, to go backwards and create a sphere packing from a distribution on a sphere. The difficulty is that a sphere packing implies a distribution of arbitrarily many points on the sphere, and gives these distributions in a coherent way, whereas an individual distribution is done with just one fixed number of points. There is abundant literature and a fair amount of controversy about sphere packings. Certainly the easiest sphere packings to understand and use are the ones with great regularity: one places a sphere centered at each point in a crystallographic lattice. An introduction to these may be found, for example, in Durbin's "Modern algebra" (Wiley, 1985). One looks at a subgroup of the group of translations in R^n which is discrete (each group element is far from any other one); the translates of a single point under this group form a lattice. The group of symmetries of such a lattice is called a crystallographic group. Note that there may be some symmetries which leave a point fixed; the group of these is finite, and indeed there are only a few possible groups: dropping, if necessary, to a subgroup of index two, we can assume the group contains only rotations, at which point it must be cyclic of order 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6; dihedral of order 4, 6, 8, or 12, or the symmetry groups of the tetrahedron or octahedron. This topic comes up from time to time in the popular press, during which an interview with the inimitable John Conway is de rigueur. There is also some very interesting work on lattices in higher dimensions, particularly dimensions which are a multiple of 8, such as the important Leech lattice. The book by Conway and Sloane is full of such tidbits. ==============================================================================