Understanding Symmetry Maps and Rotations in the Plane

In summary, the conversation discussed symmetry maps and their applications in geometry, specifically in the case of a square. It was shown that $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ are rotation and reflection maps, respectively, and that they can be composed to create more symmetry maps. Other symmetry maps of the square were also described and it was proven that they can all be represented by executing $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ in succession. The conversation also discussed the rotation map $\delta_a$ and its properties, including its composition formula with another rotation map. The conversation ended with a demonstration of how $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ affect the vertices of a square.
  • #1
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
5,049
7
Hey! :eek:

Let $F\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$. A map $\pi:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called symmetry map of $F$, if $\pi(F)=F$. A symmetry map of $F$ is a map where the figures $F$ and $\pi (F)$ are congruent.

  • Let $\pi_1:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$, $x\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}0 &-1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot x$ and $\pi_2:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$, $x\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\cdot x$ be symmetry maps of the below square:

    View attachment 9530
    1. Determine the mapping formula of $\pi_1\circ \pi_2$ and $\pi_2\circ\pi_1$. Give the geometric interpretation of $\pi_1, \ \pi_2, \ \pi_1\circ \pi_2, \ \pi_2\circ \pi_1$.
    2. Describe all other symmetry maps of the square geometrically and give the mapping formula in each case.
    3. Show that all symmetry maps of the square can be represented by executing $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ one after the other.
  • Let $\delta_a:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$, $x\mapsto d_a\cdot x$ be a rotation by $a$ anticlockwise around the origin.
    1. Determine $\delta_a\left (\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 0\end{pmatrix}\right )$ and $\delta_a\left (\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}\right )$. Make a graph for that.
    2. Determine $d_a$.
    3. Show that $\delta_a\circ \delta_b=\delta_{a+b}$.

I have done the following:
    1. For $\pi_1\circ \pi_2$ we have:
      \begin{equation*}\left (\pi_1\circ \pi_2\right )(x)=\pi_1 \left (\pi_2(x)\right )=\pi_1 \left (\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\cdot x\right )=\begin{pmatrix}0 &-1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\cdot x=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot x\end{equation*}

      For $\pi_2\circ \pi_1$ we have:
      \begin{equation*}\left (\pi_2\circ \pi_1\right )(x)=\pi_2 \left (\pi_1(x)\right )=\pi_2 \left (\begin{pmatrix}0 &-1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot x\right )=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\cdot \begin{pmatrix}0 &-1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot x=\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \\ -1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot x\end{equation*}

      For the geometric interpretation we have to see graphically what the map does at the unit vectors, or not? (Wondering)
    2. Could you give a hint for that? (Wondering)
    3. Could you give me a hint how we could show that? (Wondering)
    1. How can we do that without knowing $d_a$ ? (Wondering)
    2. How can we determine $d_a$ ? (Wondering)
 

Attachments

  • maps.JPG
    maps.JPG
    2.1 KB · Views: 80
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mathmari said:
1. For $\pi_1\circ \pi_2$ we have:
\begin{equation*}\left (\pi_1\circ \pi_2\right )(x)=\pi_1 \left (\pi_2(x)\right )=\pi_1 \left (\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\cdot x\right )=\begin{pmatrix}0 &-1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\cdot x=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot x\end{equation*}

For $\pi_2\circ \pi_1$ we have:
\begin{equation*}\left (\pi_2\circ \pi_1\right )(x)=\pi_2 \left (\pi_1(x)\right )=\pi_2 \left (\begin{pmatrix}0 &-1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot x\right )=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\cdot \begin{pmatrix}0 &-1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot x=\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \\ -1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\cdot x\end{equation*}

For the geometric interpretation we have to see graphically what the map does at the unit vectors, or not?

Hey mathmari!

Yep. (Nod)

mathmari said:
2. Could you give a hint for that?

The symmetries of the square is the dihedral group $D_4$.
It consists of identity, 3 rotations, and 4 reflections.
Can we find a matrix for each of them? (Wondering)

mathmari said:
3. Could you give me a hint how we could show that?

How are the elements of $D_4$ represented? (Wondering)

mathmari said:
  • Let $\delta_a:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$, $x\mapsto d_a\cdot x$ be a rotation by $a$ anticlockwise around the origin.
1. How can we do that without knowing $d_a$ ?

Isn't $d_a$ given? It is a rotation over an angle $a$ in anticlockwise direction. (Thinking)

mathmari said:
2. How can we determine $d_a$ ?

What is the matrix for a rotation around angle $a$?
Or perhaps more specifically, which vector do we get if we rotate $\binom 10$ over an angle $a$? (Wondering)
 
  • #3
Klaas van Aarsen said:
The symmetries of the square is the dihedral group $D_4$.
It consists of identity, 3 rotations, and 4 reflections.
Can we find a matrix for each of them? (Wondering)

The identity is the identity matrix.

The rotation is $\begin{pmatrix}\cos (\theta) & -\sin (\theta) \\ \sin (\theta) & \cos (\theta)\end{pmatrix}$. We already have the matrix for $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$ (map $\pi_1$).

The remaining rotations are for $\theta=\pi$ and $\theta=\frac{3\pi}{2}$, right? (Wondering)
The reflection is $\begin{pmatrix}\cos (2\theta) & \sin (2\theta) \\ \sin (2\theta) & -\cos (2\theta)\end{pmatrix}$. We already have the matrix for $\theta=\pi$ (map $\pi_2$).

The remaining reflections are for $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\theta=\frac{3\pi}{2}$. Which is $4$th one? (Wondering)
Klaas van Aarsen said:
How are the elements of $D_4$ represented? (Wondering)

Using the matrices above? (Wondering)
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Isn't $d_a$ given? It is a rotation over an angle $a$ in anticlockwise direction. (Thinking)What is the matrix for a rotation around angle $a$?
Or perhaps more specifically, which vector do we get if we rotate $\binom 10$ over an angle $a$? (Wondering)

So do we take here the matrices as above? (Wondering)
 
  • #4
mathmari said:
The identity is the identity matrix.

The rotation is $\begin{pmatrix}\cos (\theta) & -\sin (\theta) \\ \sin (\theta) & \cos (\theta)\end{pmatrix}$. We already have the matrix for $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$ (map $\pi_1$).

The remaining rotations are for $\theta=\pi$ and $\theta=\frac{3\pi}{2}$, right? (Wondering)
The reflection is $\begin{pmatrix}\cos (2\theta) & \sin (2\theta) \\ \sin (2\theta) & -\cos (2\theta)\end{pmatrix}$. We already have the matrix for $\theta=\pi$ (map $\pi_2$).

The remaining reflections are for $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\theta=\frac{3\pi}{2}$. Which is $4$th one? (Wondering)

What about $\theta=0$? (Wondering)

mathmari said:
Using the matrices above? (Wondering)

So do we take here the matrices as above? (Wondering)

Yep. The matrices above are good. (Nod)
 
  • #5
Klaas van Aarsen said:
What about $\theta=0$? (Wondering)

Do we not have the identity with $\theta=0$ ? (Wondering)
 
  • #6
Let's consider the map $\pi_1$ and see how this changes the square with vertices $(1,1), \ (-1,1), \ (1,-1), \ (-1,-1)$.

The square is:

View attachment 9531

From the map $\pi_1$ we get the new vertices:
\begin{align*}&\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}\end{align*}

And so the square becomes:

View attachment 9532

So $\pi_1$ is a rotation by $\frac{\pi}{2}$ anticlockwise. From the map $\pi_2$ we get the new vertices:
\begin{align*}&\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}\end{align*}

And so the square becomes:

View attachment 9533

So $\pi_2$ is a reflection in respect to the $x$-axis.
From the map $\pi_1\circ\pi_2$ we get the new vertices:
\begin{align*}&\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}\end{align*}

And so the square becomes:

View attachment 9534

So $\pi_1\circ\pi_2$ is a rotation by $\frac{\pi}{2}$ anticlockwise and then a reflection.
From the map $\pi_2\circ\pi_1$ we get the new vertices:
\begin{align*}&\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \\ -1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \\ -1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \\ -1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix} \\
&\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1 \\ -1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}-1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}\end{align*}

And so the square becomes:

View attachment 9535

So $\pi_2\circ\pi_1$ is a reflection and then a rotation by $\frac{\pi}{2}$.
Is everything correct so far? (Wondering)
 

Attachments

  • Quadrat.JPG
    Quadrat.JPG
    62.1 KB · Views: 78
  • quadrat_p1.JPG
    quadrat_p1.JPG
    58.9 KB · Views: 86
  • quadrat_p2.JPG
    quadrat_p2.JPG
    59.6 KB · Views: 76
  • quadrat_p1p2.JPG
    quadrat_p1p2.JPG
    66.3 KB · Views: 89
  • quadrat_p2p1.JPG
    quadrat_p2p1.JPG
    59.5 KB · Views: 92
  • #7
mathmari said:
Do we not have the identity with $\theta=0$ ?

That is the case for a rotation, but not for a reflection. (Worried)

Still, a reflection in a line with angle $0$ is the same as a reflection in a line with angle $\pi$, isn't it?
The reflection in the line with angle $\frac\pi 2$ is also the same as in the line with angle $\frac{3\pi}{2}$.
How about $\frac\pi 4$? (Wondering)

mathmari said:
Let's consider the map $\pi_1$ and see how this changes the square with vertices $(1,1), \ (-1,1), \ (1,-1), \ (-1,-1)$.

...

Is everything correct so far?

Looks good. (Nod)
 
  • #8
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Looks good. (Nod)

How can we show that all symmetry maps of the square can be represented by executing $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ one after the other? (Wondering) All the symmetry maps of the square are:

- Rotation by $i\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}$ with $i\in \{1,2,3\}$.
- Reflection by the axes $x$ and $y$.
- Reflection by the diagonal and the antidiagonal.
- Identity map.

The map $\pi_1$ is the rotation by $\frac{\pi}{2}$, right? So $\pi_1\circ\pi_1$ is the rotation by $2\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}=\pi$ and $\pi_1\circ\pi_1\circ$ is the rotation by $3\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}$.

The map $\pi_2$ is the reflection by the $x$-axis, right? The $\pi_1\circ\pi_2$ is the reflection by the diagonal, or not? The $\pi_2\circ\pi_1$ is the reflection by the antidiagonal, right? (Wondering)

So we miss the reflection by the $y$ axis and the identity, or not? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
mathmari said:
How can we show that all symmetry maps of the square can be represented by executing $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ one after the other? (Wondering) All the symmetry maps of the square are:

- Rotation by $i\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}$ with $i\in \{1,2,3\}$.
- Reflection by the axes $x$ and $y$.
- Reflection by the diagonal and the antidiagonal.
- Identity map.

The map $\pi_1$ is the rotation by $\frac{\pi}{2}$, right? So $\pi_1\circ\pi_1$ is the rotation by $2\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}=\pi$ and $\pi_1\circ\pi_1\circ$ is the rotation by $3\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}$.

The map $\pi_2$ is the reflection by the $x$-axis, right? The $\pi_1\circ\pi_2$ is the reflection by the diagonal, or not? The $\pi_2\circ\pi_1$ is the reflection by the antidiagonal, right? (Wondering)

So we miss the reflection by the $y$ axis and the identity, or not?

Usually the dihedral group $D_4$ is represented by $\{\operatorname{id}, \rho, \rho^2, \rho^3, \sigma, \rho\sigma, \rho^2\sigma, \rho^3\sigma\}$, where $\rho$ is the anticlockwise rotation by $\frac\pi 2\,\text{rad}$, and $\sigma$ is the reflection in the x-axis.

In this case we have $\rho=\pi_1$ and $\sigma=\pi_2$ don't we? (Thinking)
 
  • #10
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Usually the dihedral group $D_4$ is represented by $\{\operatorname{id}, \rho, \rho^2, \rho^3, \sigma, \rho\sigma, \rho^2\sigma, \rho^3\sigma\}$, where $\rho$ is the anticlockwise rotation by $\frac\pi 2\,\text{rad}$, and $\sigma$ is the reflection in the x-axis.

In this case we have $\rho=\pi_1$ and $\sigma=\pi_2$ don't we? (Thinking)

Ahh yes!

But how can we that all the symmetry maps of the square can be represented by executing $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ one after the other? (Wondering)

Is it enough to give the above ones? (Wondering)
 
  • #11
mathmari said:
Ahh yes!

But how can we that all the symmetry maps of the square can be represented by executing $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ one after the other?

Is it enough to give the above ones?

We can construct identity by applying $\pi_2$ twice (or by not applying anything at all).
We can construct the reflection in the y-axis with $\pi_2$ in combination with a repetition of $\pi_1$ can't we? (Wondering)
 
  • #12
Klaas van Aarsen said:
We can construct identity by applying $\pi_2$ twice (or by not applying anything at all).
We can construct the reflection in the y-axis with $\pi_2$ in combination with a repetition of $\pi_1$ can't we? (Wondering)

Ah ok! So do we have the following? (Wondering)

All the symmetry maps of the square are:

- Rotation by $i\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}$ with $i\in \{1,2,3\}$.
- Reflection by the axes $x$ and $y$.
- Reflection by the diagonal and the antidiagonal.
- Identity map.

The map $\pi_1$ is the rotation by $\frac{\pi}{2}$. So $\pi_1\circ\pi_1$ is the rotation by $2\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}=\pi$ and $\pi_1\circ\pi_1\circ$ is the rotation by $3\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}$.

The map $\pi_2$ is the reflection by the $x$-axis. The $\pi_1\circ\pi_2$ is the reflection by the diagonal. The $\pi_2\circ\pi_1$ is the reflection by the antidiagonal.

The map $\pi_2\circ\pi_2$ is the identity map.

The map $\pi_1\circ \pi_2\circ\pi_1$ is the reflection in the y-axis. Is this enough to show the desired result? Or do wwe have to prove something further? (Wondering)
 
  • #13
mathmari said:
Ah ok! So do we have the following? (Wondering)

All the symmetry maps of the square are:

- Rotation by $i\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}$ with $i\in \{1,2,3\}$.
- Reflection by the axes $x$ and $y$.
- Reflection by the diagonal and the antidiagonal.
- Identity map.

The map $\pi_1$ is the rotation by $\frac{\pi}{2}$. So $\pi_1\circ\pi_1$ is the rotation by $2\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}=\pi$ and $\pi_1\circ\pi_1\circ$ is the rotation by $3\cdot \frac{\pi}{2}$.

The map $\pi_2$ is the reflection by the $x$-axis. The $\pi_1\circ\pi_2$ is the reflection by the diagonal. The $\pi_2\circ\pi_1$ is the reflection by the antidiagonal.

The map $\pi_2\circ\pi_2$ is the identity map.

The map $\pi_1\circ \pi_2\circ\pi_1$ is the reflection in the y-axis.

Don't we have $(\pi_1\circ \pi_2\circ\pi_1)(\mathbf e_1) = \pi_1(\pi_2(\pi_1(\mathbf e_1))) = \pi_1(\pi_2(\mathbf e_2)) = \pi_1(-\mathbf e_2) = \mathbf e_1$?
Shouldn't a reflection in the y-axis result in $-\mathbf e_1$?
I think we have the wrong composition. (Worried)

mathmari said:
Is this enough to show the desired result? Or do we have to prove something further?

I believe this covers question 3 of the first bullet - if we have the correct reflection in the y-axis. (Nod)
 
  • #14
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Don't we have $(\pi_1\circ \pi_2\circ\pi_1)(\mathbf e_1) = \pi_1(\pi_2(\pi_1(\mathbf e_1))) = \pi_1(\pi_2(\mathbf e_2)) = \pi_1(-\mathbf e_2) = \mathbf e_1$?
Shouldn't a reflection in the y-axis result in $-\mathbf e_1$?
I think we have the wrong composition. (Worried)

Ahh ok! So it must be $\pi_2\circ \pi_1\circ \pi_1$, right? (Wondering)
Klaas van Aarsen said:
I believe this covers question 3 of the first bullet - if we have the correct reflection in the y-axis. (Nod)

Great! But what about the question 2 of the first bullet? Isn't this similar to the question 3? (Wondering)
About the second bullet:

For question 1 do we draw an unit circle and take an arbitrary angle and then we use the trigonometric functions to get the image of the map? (Wondering)

Using the images of $\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 0\end{pmatrix}$ and $\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}$ can we determine $d_a$ ? (Wondering)
 
  • #15
mathmari said:
Ahh ok! So it must be $\pi_2\circ \pi_1\circ \pi_1$, right?

Yep. (Nod)

mathmari said:
Great! But what about the question 2 of the first bullet? Isn't this similar to the question 3?

You have listed all symmetries geometrically yes.
Question 2 also asks for their mappings. If I'm not mistaken you've only listed 4 of them. (Thinking)

mathmari said:
About the second bullet:

For question 1 do we draw an unit circle and take an arbitrary angle and then we use the trigonometric functions to get the image of the map?

Using the images of $\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 0\end{pmatrix}$ and $\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}$ can we determine $d_a$ ?

Yes. You have already listed the matrix for a rotation by an angle $\theta$. Replace the angle by $a$ and we're good to go. (Happy)
 
  • #16
Klaas van Aarsen said:
You have listed all symmetries geometrically yes.
Question 2 also asks for their mappings. If I'm not mistaken you've only listed 4 of them. (Thinking)

You mean the compositions? Or do we use the compositions of question 3 and calculate the matrices?

But can we do that in that way? Because I list the compositions in question 3,can I use these also in question 2 to calculate the matrices? Or is there also an other way? (Wondering)
 
  • #17
mathmari said:
You mean the compositions? Or do we use the compositions of question 3 and calculate the matrices?

But can we do that in that way? Because I list the compositions in question 3,can I use these also in question 2 to calculate the matrices? Or is there also an other way? (Wondering)

We can write down the matrix for each geometric transformation directly.
For instance the reflection in the y-axis maps $\binom 10$ to $\binom{-1}0$.
And it maps $\binom 01$ to $\binom 01$.
Therefore the matrix is $$\begin{pmatrix}-1&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}.$$
The columns in the matrix are the images of the 2 unit vectors.
(Thinking)
 
  • #18
Klaas van Aarsen said:
We can write down the matrix for each geometric transformation directly.
For instance the reflection in the y-axis maps $\binom 10$ to $\binom{-1}0$.
And it maps $\binom 01$ to $\binom 01$.
Therefore the matrix is $$\begin{pmatrix}-1&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}.$$
The columns in the matrix are the images of the 2 unit vectors.
(Thinking)

Ok! Thank you! (Mmm)
 

FAQ: Understanding Symmetry Maps and Rotations in the Plane

What is a symmetry map?

A symmetry map is a visual representation of the symmetrical properties of an object. It shows the different types of symmetry that exist within the object, such as reflection, rotation, and translation.

How is a symmetry map created?

A symmetry map is created by identifying the symmetrical elements of an object and mapping them onto a grid. This can be done by hand or with the help of computer software.

What is rotation symmetry?

Rotation symmetry, also known as radial symmetry, is a type of symmetry where an object can be rotated around a central point and still maintain its original appearance. This is commonly seen in circular objects such as wheels or flowers.

How is rotation symmetry represented on a symmetry map?

Rotation symmetry is represented on a symmetry map by drawing lines or arrows to indicate the center of rotation and the angle of rotation. The number of lines or arrows will depend on the number of times the object can be rotated and still look the same.

Why is understanding symmetry important in science?

Understanding symmetry is important in science because it helps us to identify patterns and relationships between objects and their properties. It also allows us to make predictions and understand the behavior of complex systems, such as molecules and crystals.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
52
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
34
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top