Proof for Angle Preserving Transformation: Eigenvalues Same Magnitude

  • Thread starter Thread starter brydustin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Correction Spivak
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof that angle-preserving transformations have eigenvalues of the same magnitude, particularly in the complex case. It establishes that while this property is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient. The user references a mathematical relationship involving eigenvectors and eigenvalues, specifically using complex conjugates, to explore the proof. A link to a detailed proof by Christian Marks is provided for further clarification.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of eigenvalues and eigenvectors in linear algebra
  • Familiarity with angle-preserving transformations in complex analysis
  • Knowledge of complex conjugates and their properties
  • Basic principles of mathematical proof techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of eigenvalues in complex transformations
  • Explore the concept of angle-preserving transformations in greater detail
  • Review the proof provided by Christian Marks on the linked page
  • Investigate the implications of necessary versus sufficient conditions in mathematical proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physics students, and anyone interested in advanced linear algebra and transformation properties will benefit from this discussion.

brydustin
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
Please read the italic part at the top of https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=243852

Is it true if we generalize to the complex case that an angle preserving transformation's eigenvalues are all the same magnitude? Is there a simple proof for the real case? Obviously its not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary condition (see the link). But what's the proof.

This is how far I can get:
If its angle preserving, then for x,y eigenvectors (λ_x, λ_y eigenvalues) we get

(λ_x)(λ_y)°/|λ_x||λ_y| = (λ_x)°(λ_y)/|λ_x||λ_y| = 1 where ° denotes the complex conjugate.
But I'm not sure where to go from here... is there a simple contradiction that can show itself?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
...okay, no need for an explanation. I found a proof.
http://christianmarks.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/spivaks-botched-problem/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K