1
$\begingroup$

The following is a problem from Munkres's Analysis in Manifolds.

Problem: Let $\mathcal O(3)$ denote the set of all orthogonal 3 by 3 matrices, considered as a subspace of $\mathbf R^9$.

(a) Define a $C^\infty$ function $f:\mathbf R^9\to\mathbf R^6$ such that $\mathcal O(3)$ is the solution set of the equation $f(\mathbf x)=\mathbf0$.

(b) Show that $\mathcal O(3)$ is a compact 3-manifold in $\mathbf R^9$ without boundary. [Hint: Show the rows of $Df(\mathbf x)$ are independent if $\mathbf x\in\mathcal O(3)$.]

In Euclidean space of course compactness is equivalent to being closed and bounded.

So far, I can only show that $\mathcal O(3)$ is closed: Considering $\mathcal O(3)$ as a subspace of $\mathbf R^9$, if we define a map $g:\mathbf R^9\to \mathbf R^9$ by $g(A)=A^TA$, then $g(A)=I$ if and only if $A$ is orthogonal. Hence, $\mathcal O(3)=g^{-1}(\{I\})$.Further, $g$ is polynomial in the entries of a matrix, so it is continuous. As $\{I\}$ is closed and $g$ is continuous, $\mathcal O(3)$ is closed.

But I'm a bit confused on how to show $\mathcal O(3)$ is bounded. I've seen other responses using the fact that $\|v\|=\|Av\|$ whenever $A$ is orthogonal; I don't understand why this shows that $\mathcal O(3)$ is bounded, though. There must be something conceptual that I'm missing here.

I'm also unable to come up with the function $f$ required in part (a). If I can find such an $f$, then I imagine it just takes a bit of linear algebra to show that $Df(\mathbf x)$ has linearly independent rows — in which case, the result for (b) follows.

Any hints on how to construct $f$ or show that $\mathcal O(3)$ is bounded would be greatly appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (1) Your $g$ is not linear. (2) The function you want is essentially $g$ (the range of $g$ is not all of $\mathbf{R}^9$; can you figure out how to identify it with $\mathbf{R}^6$? (3) look at the diagonal entries of $g$: their values provide bounds for the entries of $A$. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong May 29 at 2:02
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I didn't know what I was thinking. I've fixed that part. I know that the range of $g$ is a subset of the set of symmetric matrices. How should I associate the range of $g$ with $\mathbf R^6$, though? $\endgroup$ – buffle May 29 at 2:05
2
$\begingroup$

Let's use the operator norm on the space $M_{3}(\Bbb{R})$, which is defined as: for any $A \in M_3(\Bbb{R})$, \begin{align} \lVert A \rVert_{\text{op}}:= \sup\{\lVert Ax\rVert: \, \, \lVert x \rVert = 1\}, \end{align} where the norms $\lVert \cdot\rVert$ are the Euclidean norms on $\Bbb{R}^3$ (the one induced by the "standard" inner product). Then, for an orthogonal $A$, we have $\lVert Av \rVert = \lVert v\rVert$, so it follows that they have operator norm $1$: \begin{align} \lVert A \rVert_{\text{op}} &= 1. \end{align} Thus, $\mathcal{O}(3)$ lies on the unit sphere of $M_3(\Bbb{R})$ (relative to the operator norm). It is a relatively simple theorem to show that in finite-dimensions, every norm on a vector space generates the same topology. Thus, $\mathcal{O}(3)$, being a closed subset of a compact space (the unit sphere) is in fact compact.


Note that the map $g$ you defined can be written as follows: $g: M_3(\Bbb{R}) \to \text{Sym}_3(\Bbb{R})$, $g(A) := A^tA$. Then, $\mathcal{O}(3) = g^{-1}(\{I\})$. Here, $M_3(\Bbb{R})$ is a $9$-dimensional vector space, and $\text{Sym}_3(\Bbb{R})$ is a $6$-dimensional vector space. Now, you have to verify whether the hypothesis of the regular-value theorem is satisfied (this theorem is really a consequence of the inverse/implicit function theorem).

So, if you manage to show that for every $A \in \mathcal{O}(3) = g^{-1}(\{I\})$, the derivative $Dg_A: M_3(\Bbb{R}) \to \text{Sym}_3(\Bbb{R})$ is surjective, then the regular value theorem tells you that $\mathcal{O}(3)$ is a $9-6=3$ dimensional submanifold (without boundary) of $M_3(\Bbb{R})$. So, really all you have to do is calculate the derivative $Dg_A$ and show it is surjective.

If you want to think in terms of "$f$", then you look at $f: M_3(\Bbb{R}) \to \text{Sym}_3(\Bbb{R})$ defined by$f(A) = g(A) - I$, so that $\mathcal{O}(3) = f^{-1}(\{0\})$.


By the way, there is nothing special about $3$-dimensions. By considering the map $G: M_n(\Bbb{R}) \to \text{Sym}_n(\Bbb{R})$ given as $G(A):= A^tA$, and reasoning very similarly you can show that $\mathcal{O}(n)= G^{-1}(\{I\})$ is a compact, $\dfrac{n(n-1)}{2}$ dimensional submanifold of $M_n(\Bbb{R})$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for the help! I used your steps and was able to solve the problem. $\endgroup$ – buffle May 29 at 5:41
  • $\begingroup$ Also, your last remark about there being nothing special about $3\times3$ matrices was illuminating. I thought about it more closely and it makes sense to me now. Thanks again! $\endgroup$ – buffle May 29 at 8:00
  • $\begingroup$ @buffle I'm glad it was helpful. Also, as you may have noticed, I purposely avoided talking about $\Bbb{R}^9$ and $\Bbb{R}^6$, and just directly referred to the vector spaces, without choosing an isomorphism. THe reason is that almost all of the differential calculus you learn in $\Bbb{R}^n$ (for example, as presented in Munkres or Spivak) can be generalized with almost zero extra effort to the setting of Banach spaces (for example take a look at Loomis and Sternberg's Advanced Calculus, or Henri Cartan's Differential Calculus) $\endgroup$ – peek-a-boo May 29 at 8:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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