Find Orthogonal Matrix with 1st Row (1/3,2/3,2/3)

  • Thread starter Thread starter gysush
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Orthogonal
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on finding an orthogonal matrix with a specified first row of (1/3, 2/3, 2/3). The user initially attempted to derive the matrix using equations based on orthogonality conditions but encountered nonsensical results. The solution provided by another user highlights that the system of equations is underspecified, leading to an infinite number of solutions. A systematic approach involves selecting a unit vector in the null space of the given vector and deriving additional unit vectors to complete the orthogonal matrix.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of orthogonal matrices and their properties
  • Familiarity with linear algebra concepts such as unit vectors and null spaces
  • Experience with solving systems of equations
  • Knowledge of Mathematica for computational assistance
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of orthogonal matrices in linear algebra
  • Learn about the Gram-Schmidt process for generating orthonormal sets
  • Explore the concept of null spaces and their applications in matrix theory
  • Practice using Mathematica for solving linear algebra problems
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of linear algebra, and anyone interested in computational methods for solving matrix equations will benefit from this discussion.

gysush
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Find an orthogonal matrix whose first row is (1/3,2/3,2/3)

I know orthogonal matrix A satisfies A*A' = I, where A' is the transpose of A and I is identity matrix.

Let A = 1/3*{{1,2,3},{a,b,c},{d,e,f}} where a,b,c,d,e,f elements of R
A'= 1/3*{{1,a,d},{2,b,e},{2,c,f}}

We can obtain 6 equations for 6 unknowns by equation with the identity matrix.
Plugging into mathematica yields

Solve[{a*a + b*b + c*c == 3, a + 2*b + 2*c == 0,
d*d + e*e + f*f == 3, d + 2*c + 2*f == 0, a*d + b*e + c*f == 0,
1 + a*a + d*d == 3} , {a, b, c, d, e, f}]

And the result is highly nonsensical.
What is the problem here? I also know that for orthogonal matrix we can view the columns as an orthonormal set or we could view the rows as an orthonormal set. I.e...a^2 + b^2 + c^2 =3...or 1 + a^2 + d^2 =3...where the RHS of the eq is 3 instead of 1 since the matrix is reduce by a factor of 1/3.

Any help appreciated.
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I guessed the solution by just trying to make the the squares of the components of the columns equal to 1. Then multiplied the transpose and made terms negative such that they equal 0 when appropriate. So I got that A = 1/3*{{1,2,2},{2,1,-2},{2,-2,1}}
This satisfies A*A' = I. However, what would be a more robust/systematic way? Also, why did my previous method fail?
 
Your solution does not satisfy A*AT = I. You are however close to finding a solution. What's wrong, and how can you fix it?

The problem with your initial approach is that you had false expectations. You implicitly expected to find a set of equations that would yield the solution. The orthogonality conditions give have three equations in six unknowns. That is an underspecified system of equations. There is no one solution. There are instead an infinite number of solutions.

So, how could you have solved this systematically? You have one unit vector. The null space of this vector is a plane. All you have to do is pick any unit vector on this plane as your second unit vector. The third unit vector is (almost) fully constrained. If you want a special orthogonal matrix, the third unit vector is fully constrained.
 
How does my solution not satisfy?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/3*1/3*{{1,2,2},{2,1,-2},{2,-2,1}}.{{1,2,2},{2,1,-2},{2,-2,1}}
 
Sorry, I didn't see the 1/3 in front of the whole thing. I saw your second row as 2,1,-2 rather than 2/3,1/3,-2/3. So, yes, you do have a solution.

Note that this is also a solution:

\bmatrix<br /> \frac 1 3 &amp; \phantom{-}\,\frac 2 3 &amp; \phantom{-}\,\frac 2 3 \\<br /> \frac 2 {\surd 5} &amp; -\,\frac 1 {\surd 5} &amp; \phantom{-}\,0 \\<br /> \frac 2 {\surd 45} &amp; \phantom{-}\,\frac 4 {\surd 45} &amp; -\,\frac 5 {\surd 45}<br /> \endbmatrix

The one you found is nice and rational; the above is not. There are an uncountable number of solutions.
 
Sorry, hope I didn't mean to sound like I was yelling or questioning your help in my response.
Thank you for your response about the plane! I can see what is happening better now.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K