MHB Definition of SO(n): O(n) & SL(n, \mathbb{R}) Intersection

  • Thread starter Thread starter topsquark
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
topsquark
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
MHB
Messages
2,020
Reaction score
843
Four definitions:
1) Define [math]M_n( \mathbb{R} )[/math] as the set of all n x n matrices over [math]\mathbb{R}[/math].

2) Define [math]O(n) = \{ A \in M_n ( \mathbb{R} ) | A A^T = I \}[/math]

3) Define [math]GL(n, \mathbb{R} ) = \{ A \in M_n( \mathbb{R} ) | \det A \neq 0 \}[/math]

4) Define [math]SL(n, \mathbb{R} ) = \{ A \in GL(n, \mathbb{R} ) | \det A = 1 \}[/math]

(I presume these are all standard, but the way the definitions are made plays into my question.)

My source now defines [math]SO(n) = SL(n, \mathbb{R} ) \cap O(n)[/math]

As typical I was able to sort this out as I typed it. My question was that wouldn't it make more sense to define [math]SO(n) = \{ A \in O(n) | \det A = 1 \}[/math] but now I see that both definitions are equivalent.

So no worries!

-Dan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
topsquark said:
Four definitions:
1) Define [math]M_n( \mathbb{R} )[/math] as the set of all n x n matrices over [math]\mathbb{R}[/math].

2) Define [math]O(n) = \{ A \in M_n ( \mathbb{R} ) | A A^T = I \}[/math]

3) Define [math]GL(n, \mathbb{R} ) = \{ A \in M_n( \mathbb{R} ) | \det A \neq 0 \}[/math]

4) Define [math]SL(n, \mathbb{R} ) = \{ A \in GL(n, \mathbb{R} ) | \det A = 1 \}[/math]

(I presume these are all standard, but the way the definitions are made plays into my question.)

My source now defines [math]SO(n) = SL(n, \mathbb{R} ) \cap O(n)[/math]

As typical I was able to sort this out as I typed it. My question was that wouldn't it make more sense to define [math]SO(n) = \{ A \in O(n) | \det A = 1 \}[/math] but now I see that both definitions are equivalent.

So no worries!

-Dan

This takes advantage of a special construction of English: the juxtaposition of two adjectives means both apply. That is saying "the tall English dude" is the same as saying:

The dude is English, and the dude is tall. In Mathese:

$\text{Dude} \in \{\text{tall dudes}\} \cap \{\text{English dudes}\} \iff \{\text{Dude} \in \{\text{English dudes}\}: \text{Dude} \in \{\text{tall dudes}\}\}$

In the case at hand: "special" means having determinant 1, and "orthogonal" means having the transpose as the inverse. The corresponding noun to "dude" in my example above is "linear (group)" (the group of UNITS of the ring $M_n(\Bbb R)$).

This is quite common, for example one may specify the set of all real numbers which are positive integers. While it is natural to interpret this as: first restrict to integers, and then restrict to positive integers, it is also possible to take the intersection of the positive reals with the integers.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top