My 12-year-old cousin thinks this explanation is the most comprehensible, but she still can't relate the analogy with wealth inequality
If I say
mymoney = yourmoney + 1
are you richer than me? No, you're poorer by a dollar! That's easy to see because when the variables have these names, of course you instantly and intuitively put yourself into theyourmoney
frame of reference, and easily see that although 1 is being added toyourmoney
, the result of that formula expresses my money and not yours!
to
The $(x, y)$ system must remain our frame of reference if we are to visualize the motion, and so what we do is rework the equations to isolate x and y:
$$ \begin{align} s = x + 1 & \iff x = s - 1 \\ t = y + 3 & \iff y = t - 3 \end{align} $$
Now you can see that it's a move left and down and this is consistent with the minus signs.
The "backwards" issue arises when you put yourself into the frame of reference of the transformation, but continue using $(x, y)$ to think about that frame. You have to think about the backwards mapping: how do you recover $(x, y)$ from that other frame of reference?
When you see $x + 1$, you must not imagine that $x$ is moving. (This may be "brain damage" from working in imperative computer programming languages, especially ones like C and BASIC where the
=
sign is used for assignment:x = x + 1
moves coordinatex
to the right.) Rather, $x$ is used as the input to a calculation that produces some other value. And so $x$ is that other value, minus 1.
To wit, she knows that $s = x + 1 \implies$ s is richer than x. But how does this imply a rightward shift?
Similarly, how does ($t = y + 3 \implies$ t is richer than y) $\implies$ downward shift?