I Understanding Quaternion Transformations for 3D Vectors

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tio Barnabe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vectors
Tio Barnabe
I'd like to show why a 3-vector ##v## transforming using a quartenion ##q## must transform as ##v' = q^{-1}vq##.

I tried showing that ##v^{\dagger}v = v'^{\ \dagger}v'## as long as ##v'## is given by the above transformation, whereas ##v' = qv## doesn't transform such that the inner product is invariant. However, this "proof" doesn't work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tio Barnabe said:
I'd like to show why a 3-vector ##v## transforming using a quartenion ##q## must transform as ##v' = q^{-1}vq##.

I tried showing that ##v^{\dagger}v = v'^{\ \dagger}v'## as long as ##v'## is given by the above transformation, whereas ##v' = qv## doesn't transform such that the inner product is invariant. However, this "proof" doesn't work.
What do you mean by "must"? Without any conditions, which enforces this necessity, the vector doesn't have to behave anyhow. You may transform it in whatever and in which way ever you like to. We have a natural identification of the 3-sphere with the unitary quaternions ##\mathbb{S}^3 \cong U(1,\mathbb{H})## which connects the two, but there is still the question: "must" because of "what"?
 
fresh_42 said:
What do you mean by "must"?
"must" because of "what"?
Hmm, I thought it must be so, because I have seen it on several papers which deals with such transformations. But, I certainly agree with you in that
Without any conditions, which enforces this necessity, the vector doesn't have to behave anyhow
Thanks for remembering me.
fresh_42 said:
We have a natural identification of the 3-sphere with the unitary quaternions ##\mathbb{S}^3 \cong U(1,\mathbb{H})## which connects the two
Would this relation provide us with a clue of how the vector should transform?
 
Tio Barnabe said:
Would this relation provide us with a clue of how the vector should transform?
Conjugation with group elements on its tangent space at ##1## is the adjoint representation of a Lie group on its Lie algebra. This can be generalized a bit further (principal bundles). But basically it is the map ##\operatorname{Ad}\, : \,G \longrightarrow GL(\mathfrak{g})## defined by ##g \mapsto (\,X \mapsto gXg^{-1}\,)## induced by the conjugation in the group, which is a very natural operation of any group on itself, so of Lie groups as well. Since the tangent space of ##\mathbb{S}^3## is ##\mathbb{R}^3## and ##\mathbb{S}^3## the Lie group of unit quaternions, we have in ##\operatorname{Ad}## the desired operation by conjugation. This can be viewed as a "must" in the sense, that it is part of standard Lie theory.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
I'm not sure what the OP is getting at, but I'm guessing something like this result. For quaternion q and vector v,

(q.{0,v}.q-1)/(q.q) = {0,R(q).v}
(quaternion multiplication), (inner product), (inner product) {0,v} is append 0 to vector v to make a quaternion.

where R(q) is the 3D rotation matrix composed from quaternion q.
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top