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.

If R1 and R2 are two planar reflections corresponding to the lines d1 and d2. What is the necessary and sufficient condition on the lines d1 and d2 such that R1oR2=R2oR1 ?

share|improve this question
1  
Consider what happens to a point on $d_1$. –  Gerry Myerson Jan 29 '13 at 11:49
    
it is a fix point –  Mathematician Jan 29 '13 at 15:52
    
It is a fixed point of $R_1$. So what happens when you apply the two compositions to it? –  Gerry Myerson Jan 29 '13 at 23:32

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

$R_1(p)=p$ if and only if $p$ is on $d_1$.

If $p$ is on $d_1$, then from $R_1\circ R_2(p)=R_2\circ R_1(p)$ we deduce $R_2(p)$ is a fixed point of $R_1$, so $R_2(p)$ is on $d_1$.

This says the reflection of the line $d_1$ in the line $d_2$ is the line $d_1$. A little thought about the geometry tells you this can happen if, and only if, $d_1$ is $d_2$, or $d_1$ is perpendicular to $d_2$.

share|improve this answer
    
The more one reflects on this problem, the simpler the answer gets :-) +1 –  robjohn Jan 30 '13 at 23:19

If the lines $d_1,d_2$ are parallel at distance $d$ apart, then $R_2 \circ R_1$ (i.e. $R_1$ done first ) gives a translation through a vector of length $2d$ pointing from line $d_1$ toward line $d_2$ (and perpendicular to the two lines). So in this case one must have $d_1=d_2$ for the two compositions to be the same.

If the lines $d_1,d_2$ intersect, making the angle $\theta$, then $R_2 \circ R_1$ gives a rotation through the angle $2\theta$ in the direction of rotation from $d_1$ toward $d_2$. So in this case the two orders give the same map when $2\theta=-2\theta$ mod $2\pi$, which means $4\theta$ is $0$ mod $2\pi$ so that $\theta=\pi/2$ and the lines are perpendicular.

share|improve this answer

Let $d_i$ be $\{x:(x-p_i)\cdot u_i=0\}$ where $\|u_1\|=1$. Then reflection across $d_i$ would be $$ r_i(x)=x-2(x-p_i)\cdot u_i u_i\tag{1} $$ Composition yields $$ \begin{align} r_1\circ r_2(x) &=(x-2(x-p_2)\cdot u_2 u_2)-2((x-2(x-p_2)\cdot u_2 u_2)-p_1)\cdot u_1u_1\\ &=x-2(x-p_1)\cdot u_1u_1-2(x-p_2)\cdot u_2u_2+4(x-p_2)\cdot u_2u_2\cdot u_1u_1\tag{2} \end{align} $$ and $$ \begin{align} r_2\circ r_1(x) &=(x-2(x-p_1)\cdot u_1 u_1)-2((x-2(x-p_1)\cdot u_1 u_1)-p_2)\cdot u_2u_2\\ &=x-2(x-p_1)\cdot u_1u_1-2(x-p_2)\cdot u_2u_2+4(x-p_1)\cdot u_1u_1\cdot u_2u_2\tag{3} \end{align} $$ Equating these, we need $$ u_1\cdot u_2(x-p_2)\cdot u_2u_1=u_1\cdot u_2(x-p_1)\cdot u_1u_2\tag{4} $$ If $u_1\cdot u_2\ne0$, then $u_1=\pm u_2$ (they are parallel unit vectors). Since $u_2$ and $-u_2$ define the same line with $p_2$, let $u_1=u_2$. Thus, $(4)$ implies that $$ (p_1-p_2)\cdot u_1=0\tag{5} $$ Thus, $(x-p_1)\cdot u_1=(x-p_2)\cdot u_2$ and the lines must be the same.

If $u_1\cdot u_2=0$, then $(4)$ is satisfied trivially.

Therefore, it is necessary that the lines must be the same or perpendicular. Obviously, this is also sufficient.

share|improve this answer
    
But reflection in x axis commutes with reflection in y axis. Composed either way it gives the antipodal map $f(x,y)=(-x,-y)$. –  coffeemath Jan 29 '13 at 14:16
    
Ah, yes. I factored out the $u_1\cdot u_2$ and forgot to consider what the case $u_1\cdot u_2=0$ gave. –  robjohn Jan 29 '13 at 14:31
    
I think this can be done using another way by considering the two effects as to whether the lines meet or are parallel. +1 . –  coffeemath Jan 29 '13 at 14:37
    
That looks good, too. +1 –  robjohn Jan 29 '13 at 14:40

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.