Non-Rotation Matrix Split: Hello

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the possibility of decomposing a general matrix M into a product of a rotation matrix R and another matrix S, questioning whether this can be expressed as M = RS or M = R + S. Participants consider the implications for both 2D and 3D matrices, noting that the approach may differ between these dimensions. The conversation references SE(2) and SE(3) as frameworks for separating rotations from translations, while also mentioning polar decomposition as a related concept. The inquiry reflects a desire to understand the nature of matrix decomposition beyond standard definitions. The discussion ultimately seeks clarity on the characteristics of the matrix S in this context.
Trying2Learn
Messages
375
Reaction score
57
Hello

This could very well be an idiotic question, but here goes...

Consider a general matrix M
Consider a rotation matrix R (member of SO(2) or SO(3))

Is it possible to split M into the product of a rotation matrix R and "something else," say, S?
Such that: M = RS or the sum M = R + S

What would that something else, S, be?

Would 2D and 3D be different?

Oddly, despite the stupidity (I fear it may be an idiotic question), I am aware of SE(2) (3x3 matrix) and SE(3) (4 x4 matrix) and their roles in separating rotations from translations. So I would rather not go down that path.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The polar decomposition is something like this. In its definition, a unitary matrix is used in place of a rotation matrix, to allow complex-valued matrices.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top