What is the alternative representation of SO(2) and its significance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spaceofwaste
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The standard representation of SO(2) is given by the matrix that rotates vectors in a Cartesian frame. An alternative representation, using a different arrangement of sine and cosine, is also valid as it maintains properties like determinant equal to one and transpose equal to inverse. This alternative matrix represents a rotation where the angle corresponds to the relationship between the original and transformed axes, but its interpretation is less intuitive. The discussion highlights that while both matrices are mathematically valid, the standard representation is preferred for clarity in applications. Understanding these representations is crucial for comprehending rotational transformations in two-dimensional space.
spaceofwaste
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The usual representation I see of an element of SO(2) is:

\left( \begin{array}{ c c } cos(\theta) & sin(\theta) \\ -sin(\theta) & cos(\theta) \end{array} \right)

and it is easy to show that if you make a passive rotation of a cartesian frame by \theta then this matrix will take the comps of an arbitrary vec to those in the new rotated frame.

However this matrix:

\left( \begin{array}{ c c } sin(\theta) & cos(\theta) \\ -cos(\theta) & sin(\theta) \end{array} \right)

is also a valid representation of SO(2), since it has det=1, and transpose equal to inverse. I have played about with a few drawings but just don't see what this actually represents.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
In your second matrix, theta is the angle between the original y-axis and the transformed x axis, with positive theta denoting a clockwise rotation. Alternatively, it is the angle from the transformed x-axis to the original y axis, with positive theta denoting a counterclockwise rotation. Neither interpretation is particularly useful or intuitive, which is why it isn't used.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top