Orthogonal Transformations _ Benson and Grove on Finite Reflection Groups

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding orthogonal transformations in the context of Grove and Benson's book on Finite Reflection Groups, specifically in a two-dimensional real Euclidean vector space, V=ℝ². Key points include the characterization of transformations in O(V) and the relationship between the basis vectors and the transformation matrix. Participants clarify that the transformation of the basis vector e_1 leads to a column vector (μ, ν) that must satisfy the condition μ² + ν² = 1, ensuring orthonormality. The challenge lies in demonstrating that the transformation of the second basis vector e_2 results in a vector that is orthogonal to (μ, ν) and has a specific form. The discussion emphasizes the importance of orthogonality and normalization in proving the properties of these transformations.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Grove and Benson's book on Finite Reflection Groups and am struggling with some of the basic linear algebra.

Some terminology from Grove and Benson:


V is a real Euclidean vector space

A transformation of V is understood to be a linear transformation

The group of all orthogonal transformations of V will be denoted O(V)


Then in chapter 2, Grove and Benson write the following:

If T \in O(V), then T is completely determined by its action on the basis vectors e_1 = (1,0) and e_2 = (0,1).

If Te_1 = ( \mu , \nu ), then {\mu}^2 + {\nu}^2 = 1 and T e_2 = \pm ( - \nu , \mu)

Can someone please help by proving why the last statement is true?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since your basis vectors only have two components, I assume that we're now dealing with the case V=ℝ2.

$$\begin{pmatrix}\mu\\ \nu\end{pmatrix}=Te_1=\begin{pmatrix}T_{11} & T_{12}\\ T_{21} & T_{22}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1\\ 0\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}T_{11}\\ T_{21}\end{pmatrix}$$ This is the first column of the matrix T. The columns of an orthogonal matrix are orthonormal. This is easy to see from the condition ##T^T T=1##. So the orthogonality of T implies that ##\mu^2+\nu^2=1##, and also that the second column has norm 1 and is orthogonal to the first.
 
Thanks Fredrik

Definitely dealihng with case \mathbb{R^2}

Will just reflect on what you wrote!

Still puzzling a bit about showing that T e_2 = \pm ( - \nu , \mu)

Peter
 
Math Amateur said:
Thanks Fredrik

Definitely dealihng with case \mathbb{R^2}

Will just reflect on what you wrote!

Still puzzling a bit about showing that T e_2 = \pm ( - \nu , \mu)

Peter
You know that Te2 is the second column of T, that ##(\mu,\nu)## is the first column, and that the columns are orthonormal. So you only have to prove that if ##(\alpha,\beta)\cdot (\mu,\nu)=0## and ##|(\alpha,\beta)|=1##, then ##(\alpha,\beta)=\pm(-\nu,\mu)##.
 
Thanks for the clarification Fredrik

Appreciate your help

Peter, Math Hobbyist
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
783