Did I Make a Mistake in Finding the Determinant of an Orthogonal 2x2 Matrix?

In summary, the conversation discusses finding the general form of an orthogonal 2 x 2 matrix and the special form of $A_{2 \times 2}^{-1}$ using $det(A)=\pm 1$. The speaker uses $|A| = +1$ and $|A| = -1$ to find two alternative forms of A, but realizes that one of them is incorrect. They ultimately find that the correct general form of an orthogonal 2 x 2 matrix is $A = \left(A^{-1}\right)^T = \begin{bmatrix}d&-c\\-b&a\end{bmatrix}$ with $|A| = 1$ and solutions of $ \left
  • #1
ognik
643
2
Find the general form of an orthogonal 2 x 2 matrix = $ \begin{bmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{bmatrix}$

I used $det(A)=\pm 1$ (from an earlier exercise) - and the special form of $ A_{2 \times 2}^{-1} = \frac{ \begin{bmatrix}d&-b\\-c&a\end{bmatrix}}{|A|} $ using $|A| = +1$ first, to get an 'alternative' $ A = \left(A^{-1}\right)^T = \begin{bmatrix}d&-c\\-b&a\end{bmatrix}$

This gave me $ a=Cos\theta, b=Sin \theta $ as expected so far.

But if I do something similar for c and d I get $ c=Cos\theta, d=Sin \theta $, which can't be right 'cos that would be singular.

So using |A| = -1, I get a 2nd 'alternate' $A = -\begin{bmatrix}d&-c\\-b&a\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}-d&c\\-b&a\end{bmatrix} $ This is clearly wrong, but can't see what I've done wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Uhh...$-\begin{bmatrix}d&-c\\-b&a\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}-d&c\\b&-a\end{bmatrix}$
 
  • #3
ognik said:
Find the general form of an orthogonal 2 x 2 matrix = $ \begin{bmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{bmatrix}$

I used $det(A)=\pm 1$ (from an earlier exercise) - and the special form of $ A_{2 \times 2}^{-1} = \frac{ \begin{bmatrix}d&-b\\-c&a\end{bmatrix}}{|A|} $ using $|A| = +1$ first, to get an 'alternative' $ A = \left(A^{-1}\right)^T = \begin{bmatrix}d&-c\\-b&a\end{bmatrix}$
Stop it here.
\(\displaystyle A = \left ( A^{-1} \right )^T\)

\(\displaystyle \left ( \begin{matrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{matrix} \right ) = \left ( \begin{matrix} d & -c \\ -b & a \end{matrix} \right )\)

So by comparison we know that d = a, -c = b, -b = c, a = d. And |A| = 1. That will give you the rest.

-Dan
 
  • #4
Deveno said:
Uhh...$-\begin{bmatrix}d&-c\\-b&a\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}-d&c\\b&-a\end{bmatrix}$
You mean Duh - I was stuck in Det mode :-)
 
  • #5
topsquark said:
Stop it here.
\(\displaystyle A = \left ( A^{-1} \right )^T\)

\(\displaystyle \left ( \begin{matrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{matrix} \right ) = \left ( \begin{matrix} d & -c \\ -b & a \end{matrix} \right )\)

So by comparison we know that d = a, -c = b, -b = c, a = d. And |A| = 1. That will give you the rest.

-Dan
That gave me $ Det\left ( \begin{matrix} d & -c \\ c & d \end{matrix} \right ) = d^2 + c^2 = 1, ie \:c=Sin \theta etc \:$
But I know the 2nd row of A should be $c=-Sin \theta, d= Cos \theta $
 
  • #6
topsquark said:
Stop it here.
\(\displaystyle A = \left ( A^{-1} \right )^T\)

\(\displaystyle \left ( \begin{matrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{matrix} \right ) = \left ( \begin{matrix} d & -c \\ -b & a \end{matrix} \right )\)

So by comparison we know that d = a, -c = b, -b = c, a = d. And |A| = 1. That will give you the rest.

-Dan

ognik said:
That gave me $ Det\left ( \begin{matrix} d & -c \\ c & d \end{matrix} \right ) = d^2 + c^2 = 1, ie \:c=Sin \theta etc \:$
But I know the 2nd row of A should be $c=-Sin \theta, d= Cos \theta $
d = a, -c = b implies \(\displaystyle A = \left ( \begin{matrix} a & b \\ -b & a \end{matrix} \right )\) and |A| = 1.

From the determinant we get \(\displaystyle |A| = a^2 + b^2 = 1\).

The solutions for A are:
\(\displaystyle \left ( \begin{matrix} \pm sin( \theta ) & \pm cos( \theta ) \\ \mp cos(\theta) & \pm sin(\theta) \end{matrix} \right )\)

and
\(\displaystyle \left ( \begin{matrix} \pm cos( \theta ) & \pm sin( \theta ) \\ \mp sin(\theta) & \pm cos(\theta) \end{matrix} \right )\)
where the choice of \(\displaystyle \pm\) on the sines is independent of the \(\displaystyle \pm\) on the cosines.

-Dan
 
  • #7
that makes sense of course, so I wonder why my book said to compare the answer with the 2-D rotation matrix?

So I was looking for something that would give that...
 
  • #8
ognik said:
that makes sense of course, so I wonder why my book said to compare the answer with the 2-D rotation matrix?

So I was looking for something that would give that...
Given any number of definitions of your x and y axes they are all rotation matrices. Note that
\(\displaystyle \left ( \begin{matrix} cos( \theta) & -sin( \theta ) \\ sin( \theta) & cos(\theta) \end{matrix} \right )\)
is the "usual" rotation matrix.

-Dan
 
  • #9
I think I found what I was looking for... $A \times A^T$ = identity matrix. Solving gives 2 equations - we already knew $ a^2 + b^2 =1 $, but we also get ac + bd = 0, ac = -bd which tells me that if a and b are positive one of c or d must be negative. This way there is also no doubt about using $A^{-1}$ as 1 or -1 and its a simpler solution (assuming I got it right)
 

FAQ: Did I Make a Mistake in Finding the Determinant of an Orthogonal 2x2 Matrix?

What is the determinant of a 2x2 orthogonal matrix?

The determinant of a 2x2 orthogonal matrix is always either 1 or -1.

How do you calculate the determinant of a 2x2 orthogonal matrix?

To calculate the determinant of a 2x2 orthogonal matrix, you can use the formula ad - bc, where a, b, c, and d are the four elements of the matrix.

What does the determinant of a 2x2 orthogonal matrix represent?

The determinant of a 2x2 orthogonal matrix represents the scaling factor of the transformed space. If the determinant is 1, the space is not scaled, and if it is -1, the space is reflected.

What happens to the determinant when a 2x2 orthogonal matrix is multiplied by a scalar?

Multiplying a 2x2 orthogonal matrix by a scalar will also multiply the determinant by that scalar. For example, if the original determinant is 1 and the matrix is multiplied by 3, the new determinant will be 3.

Can the determinant of a 2x2 orthogonal matrix be negative?

Yes, the determinant of a 2x2 orthogonal matrix can be negative. This means that the transformed space is reflected, rather than being the same orientation as the original space.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
720
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top