MHB Geometric action of an arbitrary orthogonal 3x3 matrix with determinant -1

Click For Summary
An arbitrary orthogonal 3x3 matrix with a determinant of -1 represents an improper rotation, which combines reflection with a proper rotation. This type of transformation is classified as an indirect isometry, indicating it maintains distances but reverses orientation. One proposed solution describes this as a rotation about the origin followed by inversion through the origin, effectively reversing the object's handedness. While both solutions convey similar concepts, the second solution explicitly mentions the rotation about the origin, making it clearer. Overall, the geometric action of such matrices involves both rotation and reflection, altering the orientation of objects in three-dimensional space.
kalish1
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I have a question about describing geometrically the action of an arbitrary orthogonal 3x3 matrix with determinant -1. I would like to know if my proposed solutions are satisfactory, or if they lack justification. I have two alternate solutions, but have little confidence in their validity. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Solution 1: The orthogonal 3 x 3 matrix with determinant −1 is an improper rotation, meaning it is a reflection combined with a proper rotation. In another sense, an improper rotation is an indirect isometry, which is an affine transformation with an orthogonal matrix with a determinant −1.

Solution 2: A rotation about the origin, followed by inversion through the origin (i.e. (x,y,z)-->(-x,-y,-z) ). Note that a "left-handed object" turns into a "right handed object", so "handedness is reversed" but otherwise it is just like a rotation.

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your "solution 1" does not say "rotation about the origin" so "solution 2" is better. Other than that, they both say the same thing.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K