@Stefan : For the case you mention, there's another step that converts between coordinate systems. For the case of U and V (as you mentioned), we'll just convert from U to V. Here are the steps:
1. We substitute for x, y, z (base scalars of U) in terms of rho, phi, z (base scalars of V). Then, there's a conversion matrix between coordinate systems - we apply that transformation to the vector that we got after transformation. This gives us the vector in V. Anyway, it was getting very difficult for me to read the obscure notation that we are using here on this thread. So, I think that the points will be clearer in latex. My reply to you guys has therefore been posted here : http://mathb.in/8583 This sheet is editable and is latex enabled. On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:35:10 PM UTC+5:30, Stefan Krastanov wrote: > > @Prasoon, maybe I misunderstood what you suggest, but on first glance it > seems it will work awfully in the following case: > > coordinate systems: > > A (carthesian) -> B -> many more -> U -> V > > where U and V have the same origin and orientation but U is carthesian > while V is polar. > > How will something defined in U will be expressed in V according to your > suggestion? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
