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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding an orthogonal matrix with a specified first row of (1/3, 2/3, 2/3). Participants explore the properties of orthogonal matrices, particularly the conditions that define them, such as the relationship between a matrix and its transpose.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to set up equations based on the orthogonality conditions but finds the results nonsensical. Other participants suggest alternative approaches and question the assumptions made in the initial setup.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided alternative solutions and insights into the nature of the problem, noting that there are infinitely many solutions due to the under-specified system of equations. There is recognition of the need for a more systematic approach to finding the orthogonal matrix.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of the scaling factor in the matrix and the resulting constraints on the vectors involved. There is an acknowledgment of the potential for multiple valid solutions, including both rational and irrational forms.

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
2K
  • · 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