Skew-symmetric matrix property

  • Thread starter Thread starter ryan88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Property
ryan88
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
This page (https://shiyuzhao.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/rotation-matrix-angle-axis-angular-velocity/), gives the following relation:

\left[R\vec{\omega}\right]_{\times}=R\left[\vec{\omega}\right]_{\times}R^{T}

Where:

* ##R## is a DCM (Direction Cosine Matrix)
* ##\vec{v}## is the angular velocity vector
* ##[\enspace]_{\times}## represents a skew-symmetric matrix

I'm not sure where this came from. Is it some inherent property of a skew-symmetric matrix?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Looks like the transformation law for the skew symmetric matrix. To understand it, you will need to understand the notation first. It may help you to know that the statement reads: the skew symmetric matrix of the transformed angular velocity vector is equal to the transform of the skew symmetric matrix of the original angular velocity vector.

A large number of "problems" are traceable to knowing the definitions and to understanding the notation.

See if this comment helps you unravel your difficulty.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top