Matrix transformations and effects on the unit square

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of matrix transformations on the unit square, specifically focusing on the relationship between the area of the transformed shape and the determinant of the transformation matrix. Participants explore the mathematical principles underlying this relationship, including the use of vector products and angles between vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the area of the image of the unit square under a matrix transformation T is given by abs(det(A)), referencing a proof involving unit vectors and their transformation.
  • Another participant asserts that the evaluation of a cross product does not require a trigonometric function.
  • A later reply acknowledges that the area of the parallelogram can also be calculated using the sine of the angle between the two vectors and their magnitudes.
  • Another participant discusses the advantages of the vector form of the cross product, noting that it provides directional information and elaborates on the relationship between angles and the cross product in a three-dimensional context.
  • There is mention of the complexity that arises when extending these concepts to dimensions beyond three.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of trigonometric functions in evaluating cross products and the implications for calculating areas, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved on these points.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the properties of unit vectors and the geometric interpretations of transformations, which may not be universally accepted or clearly defined among all participants.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in linear algebra, specifically matrix transformations, vector calculus, and geometric interpretations of mathematical concepts may find this discussion relevant.

fogvajarash
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
I was looking over my notes today, and I realized that there was a point that isn't pretty clear.

If we have the image under T (being T a matrix transformation induced by a matrix A) of the unit square, then its area should be abs(det(A)). Why is this though? I was looking at the proof and I saw that the transformation was defined as T(i) = Ti = (a c 0) and T(j) = Tj = (b d 0) [in this case i and j are the unit vectors]. However, the area of the parallelogram made between these vectors is stated to be as [[Ai x Aj]] (without the sinθ being θ the angle these vectors make). Or is it because as if they are unit vectors, they are 90 degrees to each other?

Thank you very much.

Edit: This link (around page 1) should help if I'm not clear with my explanations http://www.math.mun.ca/~mkondra/linalg2/la2set7.pdf
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't need the trig function to evaluate a cross product.
 
Oh darn, I finally saw my notes and checked that indeed it is just the vector product lv x wl (for the trig function, it involves the magnitude of both vectors or lal lbl sinθ, which is completely different from the vector product). So this means that we can as well find the area of that parallelogram using the sine of the angle and the two magnitudes?

Thank you Simon.
 
The advantage of the vector form is that it gives you the direction of the cross product as well.

Consider if ##\vec{v} = (v\cos\phi,v\sin\phi,0)^t## and ##\vec{u}=(u\cos\theta, u\sin\theta, 0)^t##
Where ##\theta## is the angle ##\vec{u}## makes to the x-axis and ##\phi## is the angle ##\vec v## makes to the x axis.

Then $$\vec{u}\times\vec{v} = \left| \begin{array}{ccc}
\hat{\imath} & \hat{\jmath} & \hat{k}\\
u\cos\theta & u\sin\theta & 0\\
v\cos\phi & v\cos\phi & 0\end{array}\right| = uv\sin(\phi-\theta)\hat{k}$$ ... which result required trig identities.

Notice that ## \theta -\phi ## is the angle between the vectors
- so the equation you are used to is just for the magnitude.

It gets trickier when you go to more than three dimensions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K