A Matrix with Orthonormal Columns

  • Thread starter Thread starter e(ho0n3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Columns Matrix
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the columns of an n x n matrix M form an orthonormal set if and only if M-1 equals MT. An example of a 2 x 2 matrix is used to explore the relationship between the inverse and the transpose, leading to confusion about the determinant and orthonormality conditions. Participants suggest simplifying the approach by directly applying the definition of orthonormality and using matrix multiplication properties. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the implications of matrix properties rather than getting lost in complex calculations. Ultimately, the thread emphasizes the need for clarity in applying mathematical definitions to solve problems effectively.
e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Let M be an n x n matrix. Prove that the columns of M form an orthonormal set if and only if M-1 = MT.

The attempt at a solution
Let's consider the following 2 x 2 matrix

\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}

If the inverse equals its transpose, i.e.

\frac{1}{ad - bc} \begin{pmatrix} d & -b \\ -c & a \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} a & c \\ b & d \end{pmatrix}

then

\begin{align*}<br /> a &amp; = \frac{d}{ad - bc} \\<br /> b &amp; = \frac{-c}{ad - bc} \\<br /> c &amp; = \frac{-b}{ad - bc} \\<br /> d &amp; = \frac{a}{ad - bc}<br /> \end{align*}

or rather that ad - bc = 1. Does this mean that ab + cd = 0? Not necessarily: Consider a = 2 and b = c = d = 1 so that ad - bc = 2 - 1 = 1 but ab + cd = 2 + 1 = 3. What gives?

And doeas ab + cd = 0 imply the equations above for a, b, c and d? I think not.

I'm stumped.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just multiply out the matrices and think.
 
\left| ad - bc \right|=1, but ad - bc may not necessarily be 1. For example, the columns of \begin{pmatrix} -1 &amp; 0 \\ 0 &amp; 1 \end{pmatrix} are orthonormal, but det \begin{pmatrix} -1 &amp; 0 \\ 0 &amp; 1 \end{pmatrix}=-1. I guess it would be easier to work from the relation \begin{pmatrix} a &amp; b \\ c &amp; d \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} a &amp; c \\ b &amp; d \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 &amp; 0 \\ 0 &amp; 1 \end{pmatrix}, which follows from the hypothesis that the transpose of M is its inverse. The equations should be simpler to work with. In general, the product of any 2 x 2 matrix M and its transpose M^T may be expressed as : \begin{pmatrix} a &amp; b \\ c &amp; d \end{pmatrix} \times \begin{pmatrix} a &amp; c \\ b &amp; d \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} (r_1,r_1) &amp; (r_1,r_2) \\ (r_2,r_1) &amp; (r_2,r_2) \end{pmatrix}, where r_i denotes the ith row of M, and (r_i,r_j) denotes the scalar product of r_i and r_j. Now equate the latter expression with the identity matrix. This shows that the rows of M are orthonormal, and the argument can be extended to any (n x n) matrix. To show that the columns are also orthonormal, we could use the fact that if MM^T = I, then M^TM=I, and thence express the product M^TM as we did above.
 
Hi e(ho0n3! :smile:

Why make it so complicated? :rolleyes:

In problems like this, just write out the definition!
e(ho0n3 said:
Let M be an n x n matrix. Prove that the columns of M form an orthonormal set if and only if M-1 = MT.

Hint: MMT = I means, for any i and j, ∑aikajk = Iij.

Put i = j: then … ?

Put i ≠ j: then … ? :smile:
 
e(ho0n3 said:
Homework Statement
Let M be an n x n matrix. Prove that the columns of M form an orthonormal set if and only if M-1 = MT.

The attempt at a solution
Let's consider the following 2 x 2 matrix

\begin{pmatrix} a &amp; b \\ c &amp; d \end{pmatrix}

If the inverse equals its transpose, i.e.

\frac{1}{ad - bc} \begin{pmatrix} d &amp; -b \\ -c &amp; a \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} a &amp; c \\ b &amp; d \end{pmatrix}

then

\begin{align*}<br /> a &amp; = \frac{d}{ad - bc} \\<br /> b &amp; = \frac{-c}{ad - bc} \\<br /> c &amp; = \frac{-b}{ad - bc} \\<br /> d &amp; = \frac{a}{ad - bc}<br /> \end{align*}

or rather that ad - bc = 1. Does this mean that ab + cd = 0? Not necessarily: Consider a = 2 and b = c = d = 1 so that ad - bc = 2 - 1 = 1 but ab + cd = 2 + 1 = 3. What gives?

And doeas ab + cd = 0 imply the equations above for a, b, c and d? I think not.

I'm stumped.

I don't understand your point with this example. The inverse of
A= \left[\begin{array}{cc}2 &amp; 1 \\ 1 &amp; 1\end{array}\right]
is
A^{-1}= \left[\begin{array}{cc}2 &amp; -1 \\ -1 &amp; 1\end{array}\right]
NOT the transpose of A and so has nothing to do with this problem.
 
OK. Looks like I really messed up on this one. Thank you all for the pointers.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
805
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
11K