If two rotation matrices commute, do their infinitesimal generators commute too?
Suppose that $e^A$ and $e^B$ are two rotations in $mathrm{SO}(n)$. If $e^{A}e^{B} = e^{B}e^{A}$, can we conclude that $e^{A+B}=e^Ae^B$? More importantly, can we say that $AB=BA$?
I'm particularly interested in the cases when $n=2,3,4$ because I was working on a physics problem that this question was brought up. $n=3$ is the most important case for me.
linear-algebra lie-groups lie-algebras rotations matrix-exponential
|
show 1 more comment
Suppose that $e^A$ and $e^B$ are two rotations in $mathrm{SO}(n)$. If $e^{A}e^{B} = e^{B}e^{A}$, can we conclude that $e^{A+B}=e^Ae^B$? More importantly, can we say that $AB=BA$?
I'm particularly interested in the cases when $n=2,3,4$ because I was working on a physics problem that this question was brought up. $n=3$ is the most important case for me.
linear-algebra lie-groups lie-algebras rotations matrix-exponential
For $n=3$ matrices certainly commute because they are about the same axis but by different angles, $R=e^{theta S(v)}$ so $A=theta S(v)$
– Widawensen
2 days ago
@Widawensen Well, intuitively yes. That's exactly why I asked this question in the first place. But how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that $AB=BA$?
– stressed out
2 days ago
If general form of both matrices is $A=theta_1 S(v)$ and $B=theta_2 S(v)$ they must commute.
– Widawensen
2 days ago
@Widawensen No, I mean how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that they have the same axis?
– stressed out
2 days ago
1
Sort of obvious, but if $ain so(3)$ and $||a||=pi$, then $e^a=-Id$ which is in the center of $SO(3)$. You probably want to add a hypothesis, like the eigenvalues of $e^a$ and $e^b$ are all of multiplicity $1$.
– Charlie Frohman
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
Suppose that $e^A$ and $e^B$ are two rotations in $mathrm{SO}(n)$. If $e^{A}e^{B} = e^{B}e^{A}$, can we conclude that $e^{A+B}=e^Ae^B$? More importantly, can we say that $AB=BA$?
I'm particularly interested in the cases when $n=2,3,4$ because I was working on a physics problem that this question was brought up. $n=3$ is the most important case for me.
linear-algebra lie-groups lie-algebras rotations matrix-exponential
Suppose that $e^A$ and $e^B$ are two rotations in $mathrm{SO}(n)$. If $e^{A}e^{B} = e^{B}e^{A}$, can we conclude that $e^{A+B}=e^Ae^B$? More importantly, can we say that $AB=BA$?
I'm particularly interested in the cases when $n=2,3,4$ because I was working on a physics problem that this question was brought up. $n=3$ is the most important case for me.
linear-algebra lie-groups lie-algebras rotations matrix-exponential
linear-algebra lie-groups lie-algebras rotations matrix-exponential
asked 2 days ago
stressed outstressed out
4,0811533
4,0811533
For $n=3$ matrices certainly commute because they are about the same axis but by different angles, $R=e^{theta S(v)}$ so $A=theta S(v)$
– Widawensen
2 days ago
@Widawensen Well, intuitively yes. That's exactly why I asked this question in the first place. But how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that $AB=BA$?
– stressed out
2 days ago
If general form of both matrices is $A=theta_1 S(v)$ and $B=theta_2 S(v)$ they must commute.
– Widawensen
2 days ago
@Widawensen No, I mean how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that they have the same axis?
– stressed out
2 days ago
1
Sort of obvious, but if $ain so(3)$ and $||a||=pi$, then $e^a=-Id$ which is in the center of $SO(3)$. You probably want to add a hypothesis, like the eigenvalues of $e^a$ and $e^b$ are all of multiplicity $1$.
– Charlie Frohman
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
For $n=3$ matrices certainly commute because they are about the same axis but by different angles, $R=e^{theta S(v)}$ so $A=theta S(v)$
– Widawensen
2 days ago
@Widawensen Well, intuitively yes. That's exactly why I asked this question in the first place. But how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that $AB=BA$?
– stressed out
2 days ago
If general form of both matrices is $A=theta_1 S(v)$ and $B=theta_2 S(v)$ they must commute.
– Widawensen
2 days ago
@Widawensen No, I mean how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that they have the same axis?
– stressed out
2 days ago
1
Sort of obvious, but if $ain so(3)$ and $||a||=pi$, then $e^a=-Id$ which is in the center of $SO(3)$. You probably want to add a hypothesis, like the eigenvalues of $e^a$ and $e^b$ are all of multiplicity $1$.
– Charlie Frohman
2 days ago
For $n=3$ matrices certainly commute because they are about the same axis but by different angles, $R=e^{theta S(v)}$ so $A=theta S(v)$
– Widawensen
2 days ago
For $n=3$ matrices certainly commute because they are about the same axis but by different angles, $R=e^{theta S(v)}$ so $A=theta S(v)$
– Widawensen
2 days ago
@Widawensen Well, intuitively yes. That's exactly why I asked this question in the first place. But how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that $AB=BA$?
– stressed out
2 days ago
@Widawensen Well, intuitively yes. That's exactly why I asked this question in the first place. But how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that $AB=BA$?
– stressed out
2 days ago
If general form of both matrices is $A=theta_1 S(v)$ and $B=theta_2 S(v)$ they must commute.
– Widawensen
2 days ago
If general form of both matrices is $A=theta_1 S(v)$ and $B=theta_2 S(v)$ they must commute.
– Widawensen
2 days ago
@Widawensen No, I mean how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that they have the same axis?
– stressed out
2 days ago
@Widawensen No, I mean how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that they have the same axis?
– stressed out
2 days ago
1
1
Sort of obvious, but if $ain so(3)$ and $||a||=pi$, then $e^a=-Id$ which is in the center of $SO(3)$. You probably want to add a hypothesis, like the eigenvalues of $e^a$ and $e^b$ are all of multiplicity $1$.
– Charlie Frohman
2 days ago
Sort of obvious, but if $ain so(3)$ and $||a||=pi$, then $e^a=-Id$ which is in the center of $SO(3)$. You probably want to add a hypothesis, like the eigenvalues of $e^a$ and $e^b$ are all of multiplicity $1$.
– Charlie Frohman
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Similar questions --- without the requirement that $e^A,e^Bin SO(n)$ --- have been asked multiple times on this site before. See If $e^A$ and $e^B$ commute, do $A$ and $B$ commute? for instance.
The answer is still "no" even if you require that $A,B$ are skew-symmetric and $e^A,e^Bin SO(n,mathbb R)$ when $nge3$. Consider
$$
A=pmatrix{0&-2pi&0\ 2pi&0&0\ 0&0&0}, B=pmatrix{0&0&0\ 0&0&-2pi\ 0&2pi&0}.
$$
Then $e^A$ commutes with $e^B$ because both matrix exponentials are equal to $I_3$, but
$$
AB-BA=pmatrix{0&0&4pi^2\ 0&0&0\ -4pi^2&0&0}ne0
$$
and the eigenvalues of $A+B$ are $0$ and $pmsqrt{8}pi i$, so that $e^{A+B}$ is similar to $operatorname{diag}(1,e^{sqrt{8}pi i},e^{-sqrt{8}pi i})$ and it cannot possibly be equal to $e^Ae^B=I_3$.
However, in a "generic" case, the answer to your question is "yes". More specifically, if the spectra of $A$ and $B$ are $2pi i$-congruence free (this assumption does not hold in the counterexample above), then $e^A$ commutes with $e^B$ if and only if $A$ and $B$ commute. Therefore, we also have $e^{A+B}=e^Ae^B$ in this case. See Is $exp:overline{mathbb{M}}_ntomathbb{M}_n$ injective? (and loup blanc's answer in particular) for more details.
When $n=2$ and $A,B$ are skew-symmetric, the answer is certainly yes because all skew-symmetric matrices commute in this case.
Wait... Aren't all elements in $mathrm{SO}(n)$, the exponential of some skew-symmetric matrix? :( at least for $n=2,3$? :( So, $exp(cdot): mathrm{Skew}(n) to mathrm{SO}(n)$ is not surjective in general?
– stressed out
2 days ago
@stressedout The mapping is surjective. Is there anything wrong with that?
– user1551
2 days ago
Then if it's surjective, how can $e^A$ be a rotation but $A$ not skew-symmetric?
– stressed out
2 days ago
2
@stressedout Close but not exactly. I mean $exp(cdot):M_n(mathbb R)to GL_n(mathbb R)$ is not injective. In particular, there exists some $X$ that is not skew-symmetric such that $e^Xin SO_n(mathbb R)$, such as $X=pmatrix{0&-2pi\ 2k^2pi&0}$ where $k$ is any integer strictly greater than $1$.
– user1551
2 days ago
2
@stressedout We don't write $exp:M_n(mathbb R)to SO_n(mathbb R)$ because the exponential of a general real square matrix is not necessarily a member of the special orthogonal group (consider e.g. $exppmatrix{0&1\ 0&0}=pmatrix{1&1\ 0&1}notin SO(2)$). As for learning, sorry, I haven't any suggestions.
– user1551
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
If $A in mathrm{SO}(n)$, then $|lambda|=1$ for each eigenvalue $lambda$ of $A$. Hence the set of eigenvalues of $A$ is $2 pi i - $ congruence - free.
Now take a look in http://www.math.kit.edu/iana3/~schmoeger/seite/publikationen/media/normexpproc.pdf
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066076%2fif-two-rotation-matrices-commute-do-their-infinitesimal-generators-commute-too%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Similar questions --- without the requirement that $e^A,e^Bin SO(n)$ --- have been asked multiple times on this site before. See If $e^A$ and $e^B$ commute, do $A$ and $B$ commute? for instance.
The answer is still "no" even if you require that $A,B$ are skew-symmetric and $e^A,e^Bin SO(n,mathbb R)$ when $nge3$. Consider
$$
A=pmatrix{0&-2pi&0\ 2pi&0&0\ 0&0&0}, B=pmatrix{0&0&0\ 0&0&-2pi\ 0&2pi&0}.
$$
Then $e^A$ commutes with $e^B$ because both matrix exponentials are equal to $I_3$, but
$$
AB-BA=pmatrix{0&0&4pi^2\ 0&0&0\ -4pi^2&0&0}ne0
$$
and the eigenvalues of $A+B$ are $0$ and $pmsqrt{8}pi i$, so that $e^{A+B}$ is similar to $operatorname{diag}(1,e^{sqrt{8}pi i},e^{-sqrt{8}pi i})$ and it cannot possibly be equal to $e^Ae^B=I_3$.
However, in a "generic" case, the answer to your question is "yes". More specifically, if the spectra of $A$ and $B$ are $2pi i$-congruence free (this assumption does not hold in the counterexample above), then $e^A$ commutes with $e^B$ if and only if $A$ and $B$ commute. Therefore, we also have $e^{A+B}=e^Ae^B$ in this case. See Is $exp:overline{mathbb{M}}_ntomathbb{M}_n$ injective? (and loup blanc's answer in particular) for more details.
When $n=2$ and $A,B$ are skew-symmetric, the answer is certainly yes because all skew-symmetric matrices commute in this case.
Wait... Aren't all elements in $mathrm{SO}(n)$, the exponential of some skew-symmetric matrix? :( at least for $n=2,3$? :( So, $exp(cdot): mathrm{Skew}(n) to mathrm{SO}(n)$ is not surjective in general?
– stressed out
2 days ago
@stressedout The mapping is surjective. Is there anything wrong with that?
– user1551
2 days ago
Then if it's surjective, how can $e^A$ be a rotation but $A$ not skew-symmetric?
– stressed out
2 days ago
2
@stressedout Close but not exactly. I mean $exp(cdot):M_n(mathbb R)to GL_n(mathbb R)$ is not injective. In particular, there exists some $X$ that is not skew-symmetric such that $e^Xin SO_n(mathbb R)$, such as $X=pmatrix{0&-2pi\ 2k^2pi&0}$ where $k$ is any integer strictly greater than $1$.
– user1551
2 days ago
2
@stressedout We don't write $exp:M_n(mathbb R)to SO_n(mathbb R)$ because the exponential of a general real square matrix is not necessarily a member of the special orthogonal group (consider e.g. $exppmatrix{0&1\ 0&0}=pmatrix{1&1\ 0&1}notin SO(2)$). As for learning, sorry, I haven't any suggestions.
– user1551
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
Similar questions --- without the requirement that $e^A,e^Bin SO(n)$ --- have been asked multiple times on this site before. See If $e^A$ and $e^B$ commute, do $A$ and $B$ commute? for instance.
The answer is still "no" even if you require that $A,B$ are skew-symmetric and $e^A,e^Bin SO(n,mathbb R)$ when $nge3$. Consider
$$
A=pmatrix{0&-2pi&0\ 2pi&0&0\ 0&0&0}, B=pmatrix{0&0&0\ 0&0&-2pi\ 0&2pi&0}.
$$
Then $e^A$ commutes with $e^B$ because both matrix exponentials are equal to $I_3$, but
$$
AB-BA=pmatrix{0&0&4pi^2\ 0&0&0\ -4pi^2&0&0}ne0
$$
and the eigenvalues of $A+B$ are $0$ and $pmsqrt{8}pi i$, so that $e^{A+B}$ is similar to $operatorname{diag}(1,e^{sqrt{8}pi i},e^{-sqrt{8}pi i})$ and it cannot possibly be equal to $e^Ae^B=I_3$.
However, in a "generic" case, the answer to your question is "yes". More specifically, if the spectra of $A$ and $B$ are $2pi i$-congruence free (this assumption does not hold in the counterexample above), then $e^A$ commutes with $e^B$ if and only if $A$ and $B$ commute. Therefore, we also have $e^{A+B}=e^Ae^B$ in this case. See Is $exp:overline{mathbb{M}}_ntomathbb{M}_n$ injective? (and loup blanc's answer in particular) for more details.
When $n=2$ and $A,B$ are skew-symmetric, the answer is certainly yes because all skew-symmetric matrices commute in this case.
Wait... Aren't all elements in $mathrm{SO}(n)$, the exponential of some skew-symmetric matrix? :( at least for $n=2,3$? :( So, $exp(cdot): mathrm{Skew}(n) to mathrm{SO}(n)$ is not surjective in general?
– stressed out
2 days ago
@stressedout The mapping is surjective. Is there anything wrong with that?
– user1551
2 days ago
Then if it's surjective, how can $e^A$ be a rotation but $A$ not skew-symmetric?
– stressed out
2 days ago
2
@stressedout Close but not exactly. I mean $exp(cdot):M_n(mathbb R)to GL_n(mathbb R)$ is not injective. In particular, there exists some $X$ that is not skew-symmetric such that $e^Xin SO_n(mathbb R)$, such as $X=pmatrix{0&-2pi\ 2k^2pi&0}$ where $k$ is any integer strictly greater than $1$.
– user1551
2 days ago
2
@stressedout We don't write $exp:M_n(mathbb R)to SO_n(mathbb R)$ because the exponential of a general real square matrix is not necessarily a member of the special orthogonal group (consider e.g. $exppmatrix{0&1\ 0&0}=pmatrix{1&1\ 0&1}notin SO(2)$). As for learning, sorry, I haven't any suggestions.
– user1551
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
Similar questions --- without the requirement that $e^A,e^Bin SO(n)$ --- have been asked multiple times on this site before. See If $e^A$ and $e^B$ commute, do $A$ and $B$ commute? for instance.
The answer is still "no" even if you require that $A,B$ are skew-symmetric and $e^A,e^Bin SO(n,mathbb R)$ when $nge3$. Consider
$$
A=pmatrix{0&-2pi&0\ 2pi&0&0\ 0&0&0}, B=pmatrix{0&0&0\ 0&0&-2pi\ 0&2pi&0}.
$$
Then $e^A$ commutes with $e^B$ because both matrix exponentials are equal to $I_3$, but
$$
AB-BA=pmatrix{0&0&4pi^2\ 0&0&0\ -4pi^2&0&0}ne0
$$
and the eigenvalues of $A+B$ are $0$ and $pmsqrt{8}pi i$, so that $e^{A+B}$ is similar to $operatorname{diag}(1,e^{sqrt{8}pi i},e^{-sqrt{8}pi i})$ and it cannot possibly be equal to $e^Ae^B=I_3$.
However, in a "generic" case, the answer to your question is "yes". More specifically, if the spectra of $A$ and $B$ are $2pi i$-congruence free (this assumption does not hold in the counterexample above), then $e^A$ commutes with $e^B$ if and only if $A$ and $B$ commute. Therefore, we also have $e^{A+B}=e^Ae^B$ in this case. See Is $exp:overline{mathbb{M}}_ntomathbb{M}_n$ injective? (and loup blanc's answer in particular) for more details.
When $n=2$ and $A,B$ are skew-symmetric, the answer is certainly yes because all skew-symmetric matrices commute in this case.
Similar questions --- without the requirement that $e^A,e^Bin SO(n)$ --- have been asked multiple times on this site before. See If $e^A$ and $e^B$ commute, do $A$ and $B$ commute? for instance.
The answer is still "no" even if you require that $A,B$ are skew-symmetric and $e^A,e^Bin SO(n,mathbb R)$ when $nge3$. Consider
$$
A=pmatrix{0&-2pi&0\ 2pi&0&0\ 0&0&0}, B=pmatrix{0&0&0\ 0&0&-2pi\ 0&2pi&0}.
$$
Then $e^A$ commutes with $e^B$ because both matrix exponentials are equal to $I_3$, but
$$
AB-BA=pmatrix{0&0&4pi^2\ 0&0&0\ -4pi^2&0&0}ne0
$$
and the eigenvalues of $A+B$ are $0$ and $pmsqrt{8}pi i$, so that $e^{A+B}$ is similar to $operatorname{diag}(1,e^{sqrt{8}pi i},e^{-sqrt{8}pi i})$ and it cannot possibly be equal to $e^Ae^B=I_3$.
However, in a "generic" case, the answer to your question is "yes". More specifically, if the spectra of $A$ and $B$ are $2pi i$-congruence free (this assumption does not hold in the counterexample above), then $e^A$ commutes with $e^B$ if and only if $A$ and $B$ commute. Therefore, we also have $e^{A+B}=e^Ae^B$ in this case. See Is $exp:overline{mathbb{M}}_ntomathbb{M}_n$ injective? (and loup blanc's answer in particular) for more details.
When $n=2$ and $A,B$ are skew-symmetric, the answer is certainly yes because all skew-symmetric matrices commute in this case.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
user1551user1551
71.9k566126
71.9k566126
Wait... Aren't all elements in $mathrm{SO}(n)$, the exponential of some skew-symmetric matrix? :( at least for $n=2,3$? :( So, $exp(cdot): mathrm{Skew}(n) to mathrm{SO}(n)$ is not surjective in general?
– stressed out
2 days ago
@stressedout The mapping is surjective. Is there anything wrong with that?
– user1551
2 days ago
Then if it's surjective, how can $e^A$ be a rotation but $A$ not skew-symmetric?
– stressed out
2 days ago
2
@stressedout Close but not exactly. I mean $exp(cdot):M_n(mathbb R)to GL_n(mathbb R)$ is not injective. In particular, there exists some $X$ that is not skew-symmetric such that $e^Xin SO_n(mathbb R)$, such as $X=pmatrix{0&-2pi\ 2k^2pi&0}$ where $k$ is any integer strictly greater than $1$.
– user1551
2 days ago
2
@stressedout We don't write $exp:M_n(mathbb R)to SO_n(mathbb R)$ because the exponential of a general real square matrix is not necessarily a member of the special orthogonal group (consider e.g. $exppmatrix{0&1\ 0&0}=pmatrix{1&1\ 0&1}notin SO(2)$). As for learning, sorry, I haven't any suggestions.
– user1551
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
Wait... Aren't all elements in $mathrm{SO}(n)$, the exponential of some skew-symmetric matrix? :( at least for $n=2,3$? :( So, $exp(cdot): mathrm{Skew}(n) to mathrm{SO}(n)$ is not surjective in general?
– stressed out
2 days ago
@stressedout The mapping is surjective. Is there anything wrong with that?
– user1551
2 days ago
Then if it's surjective, how can $e^A$ be a rotation but $A$ not skew-symmetric?
– stressed out
2 days ago
2
@stressedout Close but not exactly. I mean $exp(cdot):M_n(mathbb R)to GL_n(mathbb R)$ is not injective. In particular, there exists some $X$ that is not skew-symmetric such that $e^Xin SO_n(mathbb R)$, such as $X=pmatrix{0&-2pi\ 2k^2pi&0}$ where $k$ is any integer strictly greater than $1$.
– user1551
2 days ago
2
@stressedout We don't write $exp:M_n(mathbb R)to SO_n(mathbb R)$ because the exponential of a general real square matrix is not necessarily a member of the special orthogonal group (consider e.g. $exppmatrix{0&1\ 0&0}=pmatrix{1&1\ 0&1}notin SO(2)$). As for learning, sorry, I haven't any suggestions.
– user1551
2 days ago
Wait... Aren't all elements in $mathrm{SO}(n)$, the exponential of some skew-symmetric matrix? :( at least for $n=2,3$? :( So, $exp(cdot): mathrm{Skew}(n) to mathrm{SO}(n)$ is not surjective in general?
– stressed out
2 days ago
Wait... Aren't all elements in $mathrm{SO}(n)$, the exponential of some skew-symmetric matrix? :( at least for $n=2,3$? :( So, $exp(cdot): mathrm{Skew}(n) to mathrm{SO}(n)$ is not surjective in general?
– stressed out
2 days ago
@stressedout The mapping is surjective. Is there anything wrong with that?
– user1551
2 days ago
@stressedout The mapping is surjective. Is there anything wrong with that?
– user1551
2 days ago
Then if it's surjective, how can $e^A$ be a rotation but $A$ not skew-symmetric?
– stressed out
2 days ago
Then if it's surjective, how can $e^A$ be a rotation but $A$ not skew-symmetric?
– stressed out
2 days ago
2
2
@stressedout Close but not exactly. I mean $exp(cdot):M_n(mathbb R)to GL_n(mathbb R)$ is not injective. In particular, there exists some $X$ that is not skew-symmetric such that $e^Xin SO_n(mathbb R)$, such as $X=pmatrix{0&-2pi\ 2k^2pi&0}$ where $k$ is any integer strictly greater than $1$.
– user1551
2 days ago
@stressedout Close but not exactly. I mean $exp(cdot):M_n(mathbb R)to GL_n(mathbb R)$ is not injective. In particular, there exists some $X$ that is not skew-symmetric such that $e^Xin SO_n(mathbb R)$, such as $X=pmatrix{0&-2pi\ 2k^2pi&0}$ where $k$ is any integer strictly greater than $1$.
– user1551
2 days ago
2
2
@stressedout We don't write $exp:M_n(mathbb R)to SO_n(mathbb R)$ because the exponential of a general real square matrix is not necessarily a member of the special orthogonal group (consider e.g. $exppmatrix{0&1\ 0&0}=pmatrix{1&1\ 0&1}notin SO(2)$). As for learning, sorry, I haven't any suggestions.
– user1551
2 days ago
@stressedout We don't write $exp:M_n(mathbb R)to SO_n(mathbb R)$ because the exponential of a general real square matrix is not necessarily a member of the special orthogonal group (consider e.g. $exppmatrix{0&1\ 0&0}=pmatrix{1&1\ 0&1}notin SO(2)$). As for learning, sorry, I haven't any suggestions.
– user1551
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
If $A in mathrm{SO}(n)$, then $|lambda|=1$ for each eigenvalue $lambda$ of $A$. Hence the set of eigenvalues of $A$ is $2 pi i - $ congruence - free.
Now take a look in http://www.math.kit.edu/iana3/~schmoeger/seite/publikationen/media/normexpproc.pdf
add a comment |
If $A in mathrm{SO}(n)$, then $|lambda|=1$ for each eigenvalue $lambda$ of $A$. Hence the set of eigenvalues of $A$ is $2 pi i - $ congruence - free.
Now take a look in http://www.math.kit.edu/iana3/~schmoeger/seite/publikationen/media/normexpproc.pdf
add a comment |
If $A in mathrm{SO}(n)$, then $|lambda|=1$ for each eigenvalue $lambda$ of $A$. Hence the set of eigenvalues of $A$ is $2 pi i - $ congruence - free.
Now take a look in http://www.math.kit.edu/iana3/~schmoeger/seite/publikationen/media/normexpproc.pdf
If $A in mathrm{SO}(n)$, then $|lambda|=1$ for each eigenvalue $lambda$ of $A$. Hence the set of eigenvalues of $A$ is $2 pi i - $ congruence - free.
Now take a look in http://www.math.kit.edu/iana3/~schmoeger/seite/publikationen/media/normexpproc.pdf
answered 2 days ago
FredFred
44.4k1845
44.4k1845
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066076%2fif-two-rotation-matrices-commute-do-their-infinitesimal-generators-commute-too%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
For $n=3$ matrices certainly commute because they are about the same axis but by different angles, $R=e^{theta S(v)}$ so $A=theta S(v)$
– Widawensen
2 days ago
@Widawensen Well, intuitively yes. That's exactly why I asked this question in the first place. But how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that $AB=BA$?
– stressed out
2 days ago
If general form of both matrices is $A=theta_1 S(v)$ and $B=theta_2 S(v)$ they must commute.
– Widawensen
2 days ago
@Widawensen No, I mean how do you conclude from $e^Ae^B=e^Be^A$ that they have the same axis?
– stressed out
2 days ago
1
Sort of obvious, but if $ain so(3)$ and $||a||=pi$, then $e^a=-Id$ which is in the center of $SO(3)$. You probably want to add a hypothesis, like the eigenvalues of $e^a$ and $e^b$ are all of multiplicity $1$.
– Charlie Frohman
2 days ago