MHB Orientation-preserving isometry of R^n

  • Thread starter Thread starter kalish1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isometry
kalish1
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Orientation-preserving isometry

I am preparing for an exam, and would like to have a rigorous definition of the following:

**Orientation-preserving isometry of $R^n$**

I know that it is something like the following (feel free to correct my wording):

When the homomorphism $\pi:M_n \rightarrow O_n$ is applied to the unique representation $t_a\phi$ of an isometry $f$, and $\pi(f)=\phi$, define $\sigma:M_n \rightarrow \pm 1$. This map that sends an **isometry of $R^n$** to $1$ is **orientation-preserving**.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm a little baffled by what you mean, here. What is $M_n$?

As I understand it, any isometry is composed of a "translational part", and a "linear part".

Translation does not affect orientation, and is irrelevant, here. Because isometries preserve distances, it is clear to see the linear part is an orthogonal transformation. Thus the linear part has determinant $\pm 1$. The isometries whose linear parts have determinant 1 ("proper rotations") are the orientation-preserving isometries.

Now, it may be what you are saying is the same as what I am if:

$\sigma = \det \circ \pi$, where $\pi$ is the canonical (group) surjection of the quotient of the isometry group by the normal translational subgroup.

Another way to say this is: an isometry is orentation-preserving if it can be written as a composition of a translation and an element of the special orthogonal group.

Because $\sigma$ (as I have defined it) is a composition of group homomorphisms, it is itself a group homomorphism, and the orientation-preserving isometries can be realized as its kernel.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top