Prove the orthogonal matrix with determinant 1 is a rotation
$begingroup$
Let's define "preserve orientation" in the following way (I am not sure it is right, pls point out if there is something wrong):
![>[![enter image description here][1]][1]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IDghx.png)
For a linear transformation, we only need to check non-parallel vectors, because parallel vectors naturally come out parallel under linear transformation.
A rotation is a transformation that preserves length, angle and orientation. Any transformation preserves length and angle must preserves the dot product, and by then it is a linear transformation, and the transformation matrix has to be orthogonal by definition & properties of orthogonal matrix.
Now my question is how to prove a rotation is exactly the orthogonal matrix of determinant 1, i.e. only such orthogonal matrix with determinant 1 preserves orientation?
I have a wild guess that a linear transformation $bf T$ preserves orientation iff it has positive determinant, so we immediately have the above claim. But I don't know how to show it. This is a wild guess and very likely to be wrong. Thank you for you guys' help!
linear-algebra matrices orthogonality
asked Jun 20 '16 at 12:17
Ralph B.Ralph B.
1,032618
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's define "preserve orientation" in the following way (I am not sure it is right, pls point out if there is something wrong):
For a linear transformation, we only need to check non-parallel vectors, because parallel vectors naturally come out parallel under linear transformation.
A rotation is a transformation that preserves length, angle and orientation. Any transformation preserves length and angle must preserves the dot product, and by then it is a linear transformation, and the transformation matrix has to be orthogonal by definition & properties of orthogonal matrix.
Now my question is how to prove a rotation is exactly the orthogonal matrix of determinant 1, i.e. only such orthogonal matrix with determinant 1 preserves orientation?
I have a wild guess that a linear transformation $bf T$ preserves orientation iff it has positive determinant, so we immediately have the above claim. But I don't know how to show it. This is a wild guess and very likely to be wrong. Thank you for you guys' help!
linear-algebra matrices orthogonality
asked Jun 20 '16 at 12:17
Ralph B.Ralph B.
1,032618
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's define "preserve orientation" in the following way (I am not sure it is right, pls point out if there is something wrong):
For a linear transformation, we only need to check non-parallel vectors, because parallel vectors naturally come out parallel under linear transformation.
A rotation is a transformation that preserves length, angle and orientation. Any transformation preserves length and angle must preserves the dot product, and by then it is a linear transformation, and the transformation matrix has to be orthogonal by definition & properties of orthogonal matrix.
Now my question is how to prove a rotation is exactly the orthogonal matrix of determinant 1, i.e. only such orthogonal matrix with determinant 1 preserves orientation?
I have a wild guess that a linear transformation $bf T$ preserves orientation iff it has positive determinant, so we immediately have the above claim. But I don't know how to show it. This is a wild guess and very likely to be wrong. Thank you for you guys' help!
linear-algebra matrices orthogonality
asked Jun 20 '16 at 12:17
Ralph B.Ralph B.
1,032618
$endgroup$
Let's define "preserve orientation" in the following way (I am not sure it is right, pls point out if there is something wrong):
For a linear transformation, we only need to check non-parallel vectors, because parallel vectors naturally come out parallel under linear transformation.
A rotation is a transformation that preserves length, angle and orientation. Any transformation preserves length and angle must preserves the dot product, and by then it is a linear transformation, and the transformation matrix has to be orthogonal by definition & properties of orthogonal matrix.
Now my question is how to prove a rotation is exactly the orthogonal matrix of determinant 1, i.e. only such orthogonal matrix with determinant 1 preserves orientation?
I have a wild guess that a linear transformation $bf T$ preserves orientation iff it has positive determinant, so we immediately have the above claim. But I don't know how to show it. This is a wild guess and very likely to be wrong. Thank you for you guys' help!
linear-algebra matrices orthogonality
linear-algebra matrices orthogonality
asked Jun 20 '16 at 12:17
Ralph B.Ralph B.
1,032618
asked Jun 20 '16 at 12:17
Ralph B.Ralph B.
1,032618
edited Jun 20 '16 at 12:23
Ralph B.
asked Jun 20 '16 at 12:17
Ralph B.Ralph B.
1,032618
asked Jun 20 '16 at 12:17
Ralph B.Ralph B.
1,032618
asked Jun 20 '16 at 12:17
Ralph B.Ralph B.
1,032618
1,032618
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
For the case where it's over $mathbb R^2$ it's quite trivial. The images of $e_x$ and $e_y$ is the columns of the matrix. According to the requirement these has to be of unit length and orthogonal - therefor we have the requirement that the matrix has to be orthonormal.
In addition to preserve orientation we have that the images of $e_y$ has to be the image of $e_x$ rotated $pi/2$ counter clock wise (given positively oriented coordinate system). That is if the image of $e_x$ is $(u,v)$ the image of $e_y$ has to be $(-v, u)$ which means that the matrix will have positive determinant.
The reverse can as easily be seen as being true.
For higher dimension you will eventually run into the very definition of orientation being dependent on the determinant. However one could define rotations as images composed of "trivial" rotations around the axes for example, in this case one can see in similar way that we will end up with exactly those matrices as well.
answered Jun 20 '16 at 12:40
skykingskyking
14.3k1929
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1833181%2fprove-the-orthogonal-matrix-with-determinant-1-is-a-rotation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
For the case where it's over $mathbb R^2$ it's quite trivial. The images of $e_x$ and $e_y$ is the columns of the matrix. According to the requirement these has to be of unit length and orthogonal - therefor we have the requirement that the matrix has to be orthonormal.
In addition to preserve orientation we have that the images of $e_y$ has to be the image of $e_x$ rotated $pi/2$ counter clock wise (given positively oriented coordinate system). That is if the image of $e_x$ is $(u,v)$ the image of $e_y$ has to be $(-v, u)$ which means that the matrix will have positive determinant.
The reverse can as easily be seen as being true.
For higher dimension you will eventually run into the very definition of orientation being dependent on the determinant. However one could define rotations as images composed of "trivial" rotations around the axes for example, in this case one can see in similar way that we will end up with exactly those matrices as well.
answered Jun 20 '16 at 12:40
skykingskyking
14.3k1929
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the case where it's over $mathbb R^2$ it's quite trivial. The images of $e_x$ and $e_y$ is the columns of the matrix. According to the requirement these has to be of unit length and orthogonal - therefor we have the requirement that the matrix has to be orthonormal.
In addition to preserve orientation we have that the images of $e_y$ has to be the image of $e_x$ rotated $pi/2$ counter clock wise (given positively oriented coordinate system). That is if the image of $e_x$ is $(u,v)$ the image of $e_y$ has to be $(-v, u)$ which means that the matrix will have positive determinant.
The reverse can as easily be seen as being true.
For higher dimension you will eventually run into the very definition of orientation being dependent on the determinant. However one could define rotations as images composed of "trivial" rotations around the axes for example, in this case one can see in similar way that we will end up with exactly those matrices as well.
answered Jun 20 '16 at 12:40
skykingskyking
14.3k1929
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the case where it's over $mathbb R^2$ it's quite trivial. The images of $e_x$ and $e_y$ is the columns of the matrix. According to the requirement these has to be of unit length and orthogonal - therefor we have the requirement that the matrix has to be orthonormal.
In addition to preserve orientation we have that the images of $e_y$ has to be the image of $e_x$ rotated $pi/2$ counter clock wise (given positively oriented coordinate system). That is if the image of $e_x$ is $(u,v)$ the image of $e_y$ has to be $(-v, u)$ which means that the matrix will have positive determinant.
The reverse can as easily be seen as being true.
For higher dimension you will eventually run into the very definition of orientation being dependent on the determinant. However one could define rotations as images composed of "trivial" rotations around the axes for example, in this case one can see in similar way that we will end up with exactly those matrices as well.
answered Jun 20 '16 at 12:40
skykingskyking
14.3k1929
$endgroup$
For the case where it's over $mathbb R^2$ it's quite trivial. The images of $e_x$ and $e_y$ is the columns of the matrix. According to the requirement these has to be of unit length and orthogonal - therefor we have the requirement that the matrix has to be orthonormal.
In addition to preserve orientation we have that the images of $e_y$ has to be the image of $e_x$ rotated $pi/2$ counter clock wise (given positively oriented coordinate system). That is if the image of $e_x$ is $(u,v)$ the image of $e_y$ has to be $(-v, u)$ which means that the matrix will have positive determinant.
The reverse can as easily be seen as being true.
For higher dimension you will eventually run into the very definition of orientation being dependent on the determinant. However one could define rotations as images composed of "trivial" rotations around the axes for example, in this case one can see in similar way that we will end up with exactly those matrices as well.
answered Jun 20 '16 at 12:40
skykingskyking
14.3k1929
answered Jun 20 '16 at 12:40
skykingskyking
14.3k1929
answered Jun 20 '16 at 12:40
skykingskyking
14.3k1929
answered Jun 20 '16 at 12:40
skykingskyking
14.3k1929
14.3k1929
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1833181%2fprove-the-orthogonal-matrix-with-determinant-1-is-a-rotation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
