Derivation of rotation isometry on the complex plane

PcumP_Ravenclaw
Messages
105
Reaction score
4
Dear all, can you please verify if my derivation of the algebraic formula for the rotation isometry is correct. The handwritten file is attached.

The derivation from the book (Alan F beardon, Algebra and Geometry) which is succinct but rather unclear is given below.

Assume that f (z) = az + b. If a = 1 then f is a translation. If a = 1,
then f (w) = w, where w = b/(1 − a), and f (z) − w = a(z − w). It is now
clear that f is a rotation about w of angle θ, where a = ## e^{iθ} ## .

danke...
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    26.6 KB · Views: 462
Physics news on Phys.org
I tried to arrive at my solution beginning with ## f(z) − w = a(z − w) ## and they both matched! but the reason for ## a !=1 ## is so that a will have imaginary part therefore an angle θ to rotate about??

The reason why ## |a| =1 ## is so that z is not proportionally multiplied/scaled ??

danke..
 
It's hard to follow the handwritten stuff, since there are no explanations in it. So I'll just comment on what you said here. You defined f by f(z)=az+b, so it follows immediately that if a=1, then f is a translation. Your definition of w makes sense if and only if a≠1, so I first assumed that the next step is to examine that case. But a few steps later, you wrote ##a=e^{i\theta}##, which only makes sense if |a|=1. So you should have stated earlier that the case you're investigating is a≠1, |a|=1. To show that f is a rotation around w when these conditions are met, it's sufficient to show that |f(z)-w|=|z-w|. I would say that your typed statements do that, but you could have included more details. We have
$$f(z)-w=az+b-w=az+w(1-a)-w= a(z-w)+w-w =a(z-w)$$ and therefore
$$|f(z)-w|=|a||z-w|=|z-w|.$$ As you can see, the assumption that |a|=1 is essential.

By the way, you should try to avoid notations like a!=0. The ugliness can be avoided by using the LaTeX code \neq, or just the ≠ symbol that you find when you click on the ∑ symbol in the editor. The notation a!=0 is especially bad since the most obvious interpretation of it is different from what you had in mind.
 
  • Like
Likes PcumP_Ravenclaw
##\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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top