MHB Transformation of a Parallelogram

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.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · 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
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K