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.

For a 1D object 1D space we can translate $x\mapsto x+a$ but cannot define a rotation as $x\mapsto ax$ would not leave the distance invariant between two points and hence the onyl rigid tranformation is the translation. In 2D and 3D we can choose an axis and define a rotation using the rotation matrix. However, it seems that algebraically a rigid motion cannot be defined (as the sin and cos occur in pairs) unless we have one coordinate which remains unchanged $z=z'$ in order for $x^2+y^2+z^2 = x'^2+y'^2+z'^2$. I cannot prove this.

Prove that there exists or does not exist a rotation such that $x\neq x'$ , $y\neq y'$ and $z\neq z'$. Or, I think equivalently, prove or disprove that any rotation in 2D or 3D must have an axis.

share|improve this question
    
What's an "axis" in 2d? Just a point? Usually a rotation is defined as a distance-preserving map that fixes a point (and fixes orientation), so that would seem to immediately give an answer for 2d. –  MartianInvader Jul 19 '11 at 19:28
    
@MartianInvader a rotation in 2D has an axis in 3D space. A rotation in 3D has an axis in 3D space. Is it possible to have a rotation which does not have an axis in 3D space, but maybe in 4D? –  kuch nahi Jul 19 '11 at 19:33
    
@KuchNahi I think I see what you mean. In odd dimensions, rotations must always have a fixed direction, whereas in even dimensions this is not true (with the 2-dimensional case being an obvious example). –  Vhailor Jul 19 '11 at 19:36
    
The question is rather vague, and the title borders the absurd: a rotation 'is' about a point. –  leonbloy Jul 19 '11 at 19:40
    
@leonbloy could you suggest a better title. –  kuch nahi Jul 19 '11 at 19:50
show 4 more comments

2 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

It is true that any three-dimensional rotation must have a fixed line -- this is sometimes called Euler's Principal Axis Theorem.

[Note that my answer presumes that we are talking about linear maps. It is a classical theorem -- which I believe has been discussed on this site before -- that an isometry of $\mathbb{R}^n$ is linear iff it fixes the origin. If you have an isometry with any fixed points, then -- by translating your coordinate system -- you may assume that the isometry fixes the origin.]

I will show that this holds for any matrix $A \in \operatorname{SO}_n(\mathbb{R})$ when $n$ is odd: that is, $A$ is an orthogonal matrix of determinant $1$.

Step 1: In particular, $A$ viewed as a matrix over $\mathbb{C}$ is unitary, i.e., it preserves the standard Hermitian inner product $\langle, \rangle$ on $\mathbb{C}^n$. In particular we have for all $v \in \mathbb{C}^n$, $|Av|^2 = \langle Av, Av \rangle = \langle v, v \rangle = |v|^2$, so $|Av| = |v|$. In particular if $v$ is a nonzero eigenvector for $A$ -- so that $A v = \lambda$ -- we get $|v| = |\lambda v| = |\lambda| |v|$ and thus $|\lambda| = 1$. That is, every eigenvalue of $\lambda$ has complex absolute value $1$.

Step 2: The eigenvalues of $A$ are the roots of a polynomial with real coefficients -- the characteristic polynomial -- hence the complex roots come in conjugate pairs $\lambda, \overline{\lambda}$ and thus $\lambda \cdot \overline{\lambda} = |\lambda|^2 = 1$. Therefore the product of all of the complex eigenvalues is equal to $1$. Since the determinant of $A$ is $1$, the product of all the eigenvalues is equal to $1$, and since $n$ is odd and the number of complex eigenvalues is even, the number of real eigenvalues is odd and in particular positive. Moreover each real eigenvalue is either $\pm 1$ and the product of an odd number of them is equal to $1$, so $1$ occurs as an eigenvalue of $A$. That is, the $1$-eigenspace of $A$ is nonzero, so there is (at least) a one-dimensional subspace that $A$ leaves pointwise fixed.

share|improve this answer
    
This is surprisingly clear answer for a question I could not express clearly. Thank you. –  kuch nahi Jul 19 '11 at 20:01
    
This effectively shows that any rotation in odd dimensions have an axis - and if we think the rotation as applied to the points of a (hyper)sphere surface, it shows that any rotation in 3 (5,7...) dimensions (or any composition of rotations, that is also a rotation) has at least one fixed point. Which it's obviously not true in 2D. –  leonbloy Jul 19 '11 at 20:08
    
@Pete: Yes, we totally agree, I was not objecting anything. Just pointing out the equivalence (perhaps too obvious, but as the OP was not very clear...) of saying that a rotation "has an axis" (thinking in the full 3D space, for a 3D rotation) or that it has "a fixed point" (thinking in the sphere surface). –  leonbloy Jul 19 '11 at 20:23
add comment

In 3 dimensions, the composition of rotations is always a rotation about some axis. This is due to a theorem of Euler.

One of your statements is not true, at least not in the way you formulated it. You can easily construct a rotation in 3D that doesn't fix any of the three coordinate axes x,y and z, simply compose a rotation about one of the axes with another one about another axis and you will get another rotation (by Euler's Theorem that I referenced above) which is not about a coordinate axis most of the time.

share|improve this answer
    
A simple explicit example is the map $(x,y,z) \mapsto (z,x,y)$, which is a rotation by $2\pi/3$ about the axis $(1,1,1)$ and does not fix any of the three coordinate axes. –  Rahul Jul 19 '11 at 19:41
    
@Rahul But it does fix one axis (just not the original ones). The question was if it must always fix an axis. –  kuch nahi Jul 19 '11 at 20:16
add comment

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.