Lauren1234
- 26
- 3
how would I go about answering the above question I need some pointers on how to start?
Fab I’ll give it a go. Is there a specific way I could draw the above also?Math_QED said:Hints:
You have to show that ##(1,0)## gets mapped to ##(1/2, \sqrt{3}/2)## and ##(0,1)## gets mapped to ##(-\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2)##. Showing that it is a linear isomorphism is intuitively clear: linearity is obvious, injectivity is also obvious because two different points get rotated to two different points with the same distance between them, and a rotation in the other direction over the same angle shows that your map is surjective. Of course, if you use some theorems like rank-nullity theorem you get surjectivity from injectivity or vice versa.
Lauren1234 said:Fab I’ll give it a go. Is there a specific way I could draw the above also?
Yeah it says to draw the matrix bit as a carefully drawn diagram. So basically I need to draw a circle in the plane right think I’ve got you.Math_QED said:Draw? Sure. Draw the unit circle in the ##x-y##-plane. The vector ##(1,0)## is the vector both on the unit circle and on the ##x##-axis. Now, after applying the rotation it ends up at ##\pi/3## on the unit circle (60 degrees). Which vector is that? Basic trigoniometry will help here. Similarly you do the same for ##(0,1)##.
ive done this bit but I’m not exa sure what it shows does it tell me the matrix is a linear transformation?Math_QED said:Hints:
You have to show that ##(1,0)## gets mapped to ##(1/2, \sqrt{3}/2)## and ##(0,1)## gets mapped to ##(-\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2)##. Showing that it is a linear isomorphism is intuitively clear: linearity is obvious, injectivity is also obvious because two different points get rotated to two different points with the same distance between them, and a rotation in the other direction over the same angle shows that your map is surjective. Of course, if you use some theorems like rank-nullity theorem you get surjectivity from injectivity or vice versa.
Lauren1234 said:ive done this bit but I’m not exa sure what it shows does it tell me the matrix is a linear transformation?
this is what I’ve done so far. Do I but them together and show they’re the same? And that means they’re a linear transformation.Math_QED said:Do you know how to associate a matrix to a linear transformation, relative to some fixed bases?
Suppose we have a linear transformation ##T: V \to W## and ##\{e_1, \dots, e_n\}## a basis for ##V## and ##\{f_1, \dots, f_m\}## a basis for ##W##. Then you calculate ##T(e_1)## and write it in the form ##T(e_1) = \sum_{i=1}^m a_i f_i##. The coefficients ##(a_1, \dots, a_m)## come in the first column of the matrix. Similarly you calculate ##T(e_2)## to get the second column etc. The idea here is that a linear transformation is known completely if we know what the map does to a basis, so we put this information in a matrix.
In your case ##V = W = \mathbb{R}^2## and the basis for both ##V## and ##W## is ##\{(1,0), (0,1)\}##. So, you calculate ##T(1,0) ##. What coefficients do you get when you write this as a linear combination of ##(1,0)## and ##(0,1)##? These will go in the first column.