1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Orthogonal Matrices

  1. Jan 16, 2009 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    1. If I got a square orthogonal matrix, then if I make up a new matrix from that by rearranging its rows, then will it also be orthogonal?

    2. True/false: a square matrix is orthogonal if and only if its determinant is equal to + or - 1

    2. Relevant equations

    no equations

    3. The attempt at a solution

    1. I think it should also be orthogonal since it forms a basis, and the basis would be the same, but just a linear combination of the previous, right?

    2. false, its determinant doesn't necessarily ensure it is orthogonal. So, how would/should I correct that statement?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 16, 2009 #2
  4. Jan 16, 2009 #3
    An nxn matrix is orthogonal iff its rows form an orthormal basis for [tex]\mathbb{R}^n[/tex] (note the symmetry of [tex]AA^T=A^TA=I[/tex] for an orthogonal matrix A). The linear independence of a collection of vectors doesn't depend on the order in which you write them, so the rows of the new matrix still form an orthonormal basis.

    Just be careful your language: a linear combination of a basis reads as a linear combination of its vectors, which gives just one vector.
  5. Jan 16, 2009 #4
    I forgot about the linear independence part of it for #1.

    As for #2, I took a counter-example from wikipedia XD
    [ 2 0 ]
    [ 0 0.5 ]
    where its determinant = 1
    but the length of each column is not 1 (not orthonormal)
    I guess counter-examples should be enough?

    Thanks for the help you two. :)
  6. Jan 16, 2009 #5
    The statement #2 is (colloquially) of the form "(property X implies property Y) AND (property Y implies property X)" (*). If all you want to do is show that (*) is false (e.g., if you were asked to prove or disprove the statement), then it suffices to show that property Y does not imply property X.

    To show that property Y does not imply property X, it suffices to give an example for which property Y holds but X does not. Why? Because it definitively answers the question as to whether Y implies X. There is no guessing about it!
  7. Jan 16, 2009 #6
    Yea, you're right Unco. I need to work on my logic a bit more. I'm very grateful for your help :D
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook