Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $Q: \mathbb{R}^3 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ be an operator that preserves all distances. Is this condition alone enough for us to say that $Q$ must be a linear operator?

If not, what are some counterexamples (whether simple or pathological), where an operator preserves all distances but is not a linear operator?

[Edit] Did I even give the correct interpretation of "preserves all distances"?

[Edit] I guess not! What I meant is that $Q$ is an isometry (i.e. $||Qx - Qy|| = ||x - y||$ for any $x$, $y$).

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 8 down vote accepted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazur-Ulam_theorem

share|improve this answer
3  
So, to summarize: no, Q also has to fix the origin. –  Qiaochu Yuan Jan 10 '11 at 14:46

(EDIT: when I wrote this answer, the question asked if "for all $x$, $\|Qx\|=\|x\|$" was the right definition of "$Q$ preserves all distances").

No, your condition is not equivalent to preserving all distances. For example, the map which maps $(1,0,0)$ to $(-1,0,0)$ and fixes everything else satisfies your condition but does not preserve all distances, as it reduces the distance between $(1,0,0)$ and $(-1,0,0)$ from 2 to 0.

The natural notion of preserving all distances is for $Q$ to be an isometry: that is, $\|Q(x)-Q(y)\|=\|x-y\|$ for all $x$ and $y$. A map with this property need not be linear (for example, $Q(x)=x+(1,0,0)$ has this property), but it must be affine. Thus if you also require $Q$ to fix $0$, then it is linear.

share|improve this answer
    
Why is it linear then? –  Rasmus Jan 10 '11 at 7:50
    
While I agree with your second paragraph, I don't understand the example of the first paragraph. In fact, the condition $\|Qv\| = \|v\|$ implies that $Q$ is linear. –  t.b. Jan 10 '11 at 7:52
    
@Theo: it's a pretty simple example, hopefully only obscured by my typo of "with" for "to". If $v$ is not $(1,0,0)$, then $Qv$=$v$, so certainly $\|Qv\|=\|v\|$. If $v=(1,0,0)$, then $\|Qv\|=\|(-1,0,0)\|=1=\|v\|$. –  Chris Eagle Jan 10 '11 at 7:57
    
@Rasmus: I can't actually remember how that proof goes. Hopefully someone will explain it. For the moment, it's on page 489 of this book. –  Chris Eagle Jan 10 '11 at 8:06
    
Ah, right. I forgot about the surjectivity part in the Mazur-Ulam theorem. –  t.b. Jan 10 '11 at 8:29

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.