Transformation of a Parallelogram

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation of a parallelogram defined by two vectors under a linear transformation. Participants explore the implications of this transformation on the geometric properties of the parallelogram, including conditions under which the image remains a parallelogram, line segment, or zero vector. The conversation also touches on notation and definitions used in the context of linear transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines the set of points in the parallelogram as $P_n = a\textbf{u} + b\textbf{v}$, where $0 \le a \le 1$ and $0 \le b \le 1$, and discusses the image under a linear transformation.
  • Another participant questions the use of subscripts and primes in notation, suggesting that they may imply sequences or operations that are not clearly defined.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity of the notation used, particularly regarding the prime symbol and its interpretation in the context of linear transformations.
  • Participants discuss the conditions under which the transformed set $P'$ can be classified as a parallelogram, line segment, or zero vector, noting that these classifications may not be mutually exclusive.
  • There is a suggestion to clarify the definitions and properties being referenced, particularly regarding the linear transformation and the notation used.
  • Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

    Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of notation and definitions. There is no consensus on the best way to represent points or transformations, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the clarity and correctness of the initial solution.

    Contextual Notes

    Limitations include potential ambiguity in notation, the need for clearer definitions of operations, and the classification of geometric shapes resulting from transformations, which may not cover all possibilities.

bwpbruce
Messages
60
Reaction score
1
$\textbf{Problem}$
Let $\textbf{u}$ and $\textbf{v}$ be vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$. It can be shown that the set $P$ of all points in the parallelogram determined by $\textbf{u}$ and $\textbf{v}$ has the form $a\textbf{u} + b\textbf{v}$, for $0 \le a \le 1, 0 \le b \le 1$. Let $T: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ be a linear transformation. Explain why the image of a point in $P$ under transformation $T$ lies in the parallelogram determined by $T\textbf{(u)}$ and $T(\textbf{(v)}$.

$\textbf{Solution}$
Let
$P_n = a\textbf{u} + b\textbf{v}$ represent a point in set $P$ where $0 \le a \le 1$ and $0 \le b \le 1$.
$P'$ represent the image of $P$.
$P'_n$ represent a point in the image of $P'$

Then:
By property $(i)$ of the definition of linear transformation:
\begin{align*}P' &= (a\textbf{u} + b\textbf{v})' \\&= a\textbf{u}' + b\textbf{v}', 0 \le a \le 1, 0 \le b \le 1\end{align*}
The set $P'$ is a parallelogram if $\textbf{u}' \ne b\textbf{v}'$ and $\textbf{v}' \ne a\textbf{v}'$.
The set $P'$ is a line segment if $\textbf{u}' = \textbf{0}$ or $\textbf{v}' = \textbf{0}$
The set $P'$ is the zero vector if $\textbf{u}' = \textbf{v}' = \textbf{0}$.
In each case $P'_n$ is a point in $P'$.

Can someone please provide some feedback on my solution? Thanks?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
bwpbruce said:
Let
$P_n = a\textbf{u} + b\textbf{v}$ represent a point in set $P$ where $0 \le a \le 1$ and $0 \le b \le 1$.
Usually when you add a subscript $n$, this signifies a sequence where $n$ ranges over natural numbers.
bwpbruce said:
$P'_n$ represent a point in the image of $P'$
Any point?

bwpbruce said:
Then:
By property $(i)$ of the definition of linear transformation:
For those who don't know the particular version of the definition you use, it is a good idea to state this property.

bwpbruce said:
\begin{align*}P' &= (a\textbf{u} + b\textbf{v})' \\&= a\textbf{u}' + b\textbf{v}', 0 \le a \le 1, 0 \le b \le 1\end{align*}
Usually a prime is a part of a name of a point, set, or other object. It's like in a programming language an identifier may consist of letters, digits and underscore. The identifier [m]point2[/m] does not mean the second element of an array [m]point[/m] or something like that; the whole word [m]point2[/m] is a single name. Similarly, unless prime has an established meaning like the derivative in calculus, adding it to a name does not signify applying an operation; a prime is simply a part of a name just like a letter. You wrote $(a\textbf{u} + b\textbf{v})'$, where prime is used an an operation, which you have not defined. Also, $P'$ is a set, but the right-hand side of the equation, i.e., $(a\textbf{u} + b\textbf{v})'$, is a single point.

bwpbruce said:
The set $P'$ is a parallelogram if $\textbf{u}' \ne b\textbf{v}'$ and $\textbf{v}' \ne a\textbf{v}'$.
The set $P'$ is a line segment if $\textbf{u}' = \textbf{0}$ or $\textbf{v}' = \textbf{0}$
The set $P'$ is the zero vector if $\textbf{u}' = \textbf{v}' = \textbf{0}$.
These cases are not mutually exclusive and do not cover all possibilities.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Usually when you add a subscript $n$, this signifies a sequence where $n$ ranges over natural numbers.
Any point?

You wrote $(a\textbf{u} + b\textbf{v})'$, where prime is used an an operation, which you have not defined. Also, $P'$ is a set, but the right-hand side of the equation, i.e., $(a\textbf{u} + b\textbf{v})'$, is a single point.

These cases are not mutually exclusive and do not cover all possibilities.

Using prime is more convenient. I don't see the harm in it. I've seen others use it. What's the best variable to use in place of $n$? How do I fix the mutually exclusive part?
 
bwpbruce said:
Using prime is more convenient. I don't see the harm
There is nothing convenient about using undefined operations. Besides, it must be a synonym for $T$. Why introduce another notation? I want to stress that even though you are free to introduce prime as a synonym for $T$, you have to explicitly define it this way.

bwpbruce said:
What's the best variable to use in place of $n$?
What is your intention behind it? Why do you want to use a variable?

bwpbruce said:
How do I fix the mutually exclusive part?
Think why they are not exclusive.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K