Equation of a Surface relative to a basis

shonen
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Equation of a Surface relative to the standard basis is

X1^1 + 2X2^2 + 3x^3 -4x1x2 -4x2x3 =0

Now the question ask to find the equation of above surface relative to the cordinate system with basis vectors

F1= (2/3,2/3,1/3)
F2= (1/3,-2/3,2/3)
F3= (2/3,-1/3,-2/3)

Now i found the transition matrix from the standard basis ( (1,0,0),(0,0,1),(0,0,1) ) to (F1,F2,F3) which was found to be

(2/3, 2/3, 1/3)
(1/3,-2/3, 2/3)
(2/3 -1/3,-2/3)

and got an arbitrary vector (a,b,c) in coordinate system in terms of coordinate (x1,x2,x3) relative to the standard basis

27a = 2x1 + 2x2 +x3
27b = x1 -2x2 +2x3
27bc= 2x1 -x2 -2x3

Problem is expressing the above equation of a surface in terms of a,b,and c.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
shonen said:
Now i found the transition matrix from the standard basis ( (1,0,0),(0,0,1),(0,0,1) ) to (F1,F2,F3) which was found to be

(2,2,1)
(1-2 3) * (1/(3)^3)
(2-1-2)

How will that matrix transform (0,0,1) to the correct representation in terms of F1,F2,F3?
 
Stephen Tashi said:
How will that matrix transform (0,0,1) to the correct representation in terms of F1,F2,F3?
Let B be the matrix whose row are the standard basis, and C the matrix whose row i is the 3x1 basis vector Fi (i=1,2,3) for the coordinate system. and

p =(2/3, 2/3, 1/3)
(1/3,-2/3, 2/3)
(2/3 -1/3,-2/3)

Then

B=PT (P transpose)(C) ---(2)

Where P the transition matrix from the standard basis to C. Is it ok now ?

In the above equation I've just expressed the standard basis as a linear combination of F1,F2,F3. From definition the transition matrix from standard basis to F1,F2,F3 is one whose columns are the coordinates of the standard basis relative to F1,F2,F3.
 
Last edited:
I think that version of P is correct.

X_1 = 1 X_1 + 0 X_2 + 0 X_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1\\0 \\0 \end{pmatrix} in the standard basis. Use P^T to transform X_1 into the F basis. You get some vector \begin{pmatrix} a \\b \\c \end{pmatrix} so X_1 = a F_1 + b F_2 + c F_3 and you can substitute that for X_1 in the equation for the surface. etc.
 
##\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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top