Which is the geometric interpretation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the geometric interpretation of two specific linear transformations represented by matrices. Participants explore the properties of these transformations, including whether they represent projections, rotations, or reflections, and discuss their fixed points and kernels.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the first matrix may represent a rotation in the xy-plane with a reversal in the z-direction, while others question whether it has fixed point vectors and a non-zero kernel.
  • One participant proposes that a projection would have specific eigenvalues and a non-zero kernel, while another participant calculates the kernel and concludes it contains only the zero vector, suggesting it is not a projection.
  • There is a discussion about the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the matrices, with some participants indicating that a projection in 3D should have eigenvalues of 1, 1, and 0, while a reflection would have eigenvalues of 1, 1, and -1.
  • Another participant describes the second matrix as a rotation by -60 degrees in the yz-plane, using trigonometric identities to support this interpretation.
  • Concerns are raised about the accuracy of the matrix representation and whether it should include a specific value in the z-component.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the geometric interpretations of the matrices, with some agreeing on certain properties while others challenge these interpretations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature of the transformations.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on specific definitions and properties of linear transformations, but there are unresolved questions about the eigenvalues and the nature of the transformations, particularly concerning fixed points and kernels.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Which is the geometric interpretation of the following maps?

$$v\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} 0&-1&0\\ 1&0&0\\ 0&0&-1\end{pmatrix}v$$ and $$v\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} 1& 0&0\\0&\frac{1}{2} &-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\\ 0&\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}&\frac{1}{2}\end{pmatrix}v$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Which is the geometric interpretation of the following maps?

$$v\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} 0&-1&0\\ 1&0&0\\ 0&0&-1\end{pmatrix}v$$ and $$v\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} 1& 0&0\\0&\frac{1}{2} &-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\\ 0&\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}&\frac{1}{2}\end{pmatrix}v$$

Hey mathmari!

Can we think of some geometric properties that we can verify? (Wondering)

For instance, if a map is a projection, we expect that we have fixpoint vectors in a plane and a non-zero kernel, don't we?
For a rotation we would expect a fixpoint vector along the axis, and that the lengths and angles of vectors are preserved.
For a reflection we would expect fixpoint vectors in a plane, and a normal vector that is mapped to its opposite.

Do those maps have fixpoint vectors?
What is their kernel?
Is there a vector that is mapped to its opposite? (Wondering)

We might also characterize the matrices by the eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
For instance a projection in 3D will have eigenvalues 1, 1, and 0.
And a reflection will have eigenvalues 1,1, and -1.
Can we find those? (Wondering)
 
For the kernel we have: \begin{equation*}\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix} \ \overset{Z_1\leftrightarrow Z_2}{\longrightarrow } \ \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}\end{equation*}

So the kernel contains only the zero vector. Therefore we don't have a projection. For the set of fixed points we have: \begin{align*}\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}v_1 \\ v_2\\ v_3\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}v_1 \\ v_2\\ v_3\end{pmatrix} &\longrightarrow \begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}v_1 \\ v_2\\ v_3\end{pmatrix}-\begin{pmatrix}v_1 \\ v_2\\ v_3\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0\\ 0\end{pmatrix} \\ & \longrightarrow \begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}v_1 \\ v_2\\ v_3\end{pmatrix}-\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}v_1 \\ v_2\\ v_3\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0\\ 0\end{pmatrix} \\ & \longrightarrow \left (\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}-\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}\right )\begin{pmatrix}v_1 \\ v_2\\ v_3\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0\\ 0\end{pmatrix}
\\ & \longrightarrow \begin{pmatrix}-1 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}v_1 \\ v_2\\ v_3\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0\\ 0\end{pmatrix}\end{align*}
The echelon form of the matric ist:
\begin{equation*}\begin{pmatrix}-1 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{pmatrix} \ \longrightarrow \begin{pmatrix}-1 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}\end{equation*}
We get the equations
\begin{align*}-v_1-v_2=&0 \\ -2v_2=&0\end{align*}
The set of fixed vectors is therefore \begin{equation*}\text{Fix}=\left \{v_3\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}\mid v_3\in \mathbb{R}\right \}\end{equation*}
Is this a fixpoint vector along the axis, and that the lengths and angles of vectors are preserved and so we have a rotation? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Which is the geometric interpretation of the following maps?

$$v\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} 0&-1&0\\ 1&0&0\\ 0&0&-1\end{pmatrix}v$$ and
(1, 0, 0) is mapped to (0, 1, 0), (0, 1, 0) is mapped to (-1, 0, 0), and (0, 0, -1). Geometrically, a three dimensional figure is rotated 90 degrees in the xy-plane and the z-direction is reversed.

$$v\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} 1& 0&0\\0&\frac{1}{2} &-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\\ 0&\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}&\frac{1}{2}\end{pmatrix}v$$
$cos(-60)= \frac{1}{2}$ and $sin(-60)= -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}$ so this is a rotation by -60 degrees (60 degrees counter-clockwise) in the yz-plane.
 
mathmari said:
For the kernel we have: \begin{equation*}\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix} \ \overset{Z_1\leftrightarrow Z_2}{\longrightarrow } \ \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}\end{equation*}

Shouldn't the matrix be:
\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {\color{red}-\enclose{circle}{1}}\end{pmatrix}
(Worried)
 

Similar threads

Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K