Linear algebra invertible transformation of coordinates

Click For Summary
A linear transformation can be expressed as a change of basis, represented by the equation A^{x'} = T(A^{x}), with the condition that det T_{mn} ≠ 0 for invertibility. For non-linear transformations, such as (x,y) -> (e^x,e^y), the determinant criterion for bijectivity does not apply, necessitating the definition of an inverse function to establish a bijection. The distinction between bijections and isomorphisms is crucial, as isomorphisms require linearity, while bijections only require a one-to-one correspondence without additional structure. Transitioning from linear to arbitrary coordinate transformations shifts the focus from vector spaces to sets, which disregards linear properties. To confirm invertibility in this broader context, it is essential to demonstrate the existence of a second transformation T' that satisfies the identity conditions with T.
LCSphysicist
Messages
644
Reaction score
162
Homework Statement
Under what conditions is a coordinate transformation invertible in a neighborhood of some point?
Relevant Equations
N.
##A^{x'} = T(A^{x})##, where T is a linear transformation, in such way maybe i could express the transformation as a changing of basis from x to x' matrix:
##A^{x} = T_{mn}(A^{x'})##, in such conditions, i could say det ##T_{mn} \neq 0##. But how to deal with, for example, ##(x,y) -> (e^x,e^y)## ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think about the Jacobian.
 
LCSphysicist said:
Homework Statement:: Under what conditions is a coordinate transformation invertible in a neighborhood of some point?
Relevant Equations:: N.

##A^{x'} = T(A^{x})##, where T is a linear transformation, in such way maybe i could express the transformation as a changing of basis from x to x' matrix:
##A^{x} = T_{mn}(A^{x'})##, in such conditions, i could say det ##T_{mn} \neq 0##. But how to deal with, for example, ##(x,y) -> (e^x,e^y)## ?
If the transformation is linear, you used the determinant criterion to check bijectivity. If it is not linear, then you obviously cannot use theorems about linear transformations. In that case you will have to define the inverse function and show that it is a bijection.

There is a difference between a bijection and an isomorphism. Isomorphisms belong to a certain category, here the category of vector spaces. This requires linearity. If the category is e.g. the topological spaces, then continuity in both directions is required, in the case of smooth manifolds it is differentiability. A bijection on the other hand is merely an isomorphism on the category of sets, where no further structure is considered, just sets.

By allowing an arbitrary coordinate transformation, you changed from the category of vector spaces to the category of sets. This means you forgot all linear structures. So you have to show that there is a second transformation ##T'## such that ##T\circ T'## and ##T'\circ T## are both identities of the corresponding set of vectors.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K