A better proof for $det(P) = pm1$ if $P$ is an orthogonal matrix












2












$begingroup$


Looking for elementary proof for $rm~det(textbf{P})$ = $pm 1$ if $P$ is an orthogonal matrix. I prefer a proof without using determinant of transpose matrix.



My First Proof, with $det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$



If $P$ is orthogonal matrix, $textbf{P}^{t}=textbf{P}^{-1}$. So,
$$det(textbf{P}^{t}textbf{P})=det(textbf{I}) implies det(textbf{P}^{t}textbf{P}) = 1 implies det(textbf{P}^{t}) det(textbf{P}) = 1$$
because $ det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$.

Therefore, $det(textbf{P}^{t})=det(textbf{P}) = pm 1$.



My Second Proof, without $det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$



Let $lambda$ be an eigenvalue for orthogonal matrix $textbf{P}$.
$$textbf{P}vec{v}=lambdavec{v},quadvec{v} neq vec{0}$$
$$implies rVert textbf{P}vec{v}lVert = lVert lambdavec{v} lVert implies rVert textbf{P}vec{v} lVert = rvert lambda lvert lVert vec{v} rVert = 1$$
because $lVert vec{v} rVert = 1$



Therefore $lvert lambda rvert = 1$
because $textbf{P}$ is orthonormal matrix.
$$textbf{P} = textbf{P}^{t}$$
Therefore $textbf{P} = textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U} $
$$det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(textbf{U}^{t})det(Lambda)det(textbf{U})$$
$$det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(textbf{U}^{t})det(textbf{U})det(Lambda)$$
$$det(textbf{U}^{t})det(textbf{U}) = 1 $$
(because $textbf{U}$ is orthogonal matrix})



$$det(textbf{P}) = det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(Lambda) = prod_{i=1}^{n}lambda_i = pm 1 $$
$$implies det(textbf{P}) = pm 1$$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The claim isn't true; unitary matrices have $|det{P}| = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – user61527
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:18






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What you are getting is $(det P)^2=1$, but no more than that.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:20










  • $begingroup$
    thx to point it out
    $endgroup$
    – bsdshell
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:21










  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't it be $P^t P = I$ instead of "$implies P^t = P$" at the top?
    $endgroup$
    – Pratyush Sarkar
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:25










  • $begingroup$
    And the proof is $det(P^tP) = det(I) implies det(P)^2 = 1$ which is what you already have. It is as elementary as it can get.
    $endgroup$
    – Pratyush Sarkar
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:30
















2












$begingroup$


Looking for elementary proof for $rm~det(textbf{P})$ = $pm 1$ if $P$ is an orthogonal matrix. I prefer a proof without using determinant of transpose matrix.



My First Proof, with $det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$



If $P$ is orthogonal matrix, $textbf{P}^{t}=textbf{P}^{-1}$. So,
$$det(textbf{P}^{t}textbf{P})=det(textbf{I}) implies det(textbf{P}^{t}textbf{P}) = 1 implies det(textbf{P}^{t}) det(textbf{P}) = 1$$
because $ det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$.

Therefore, $det(textbf{P}^{t})=det(textbf{P}) = pm 1$.



My Second Proof, without $det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$



Let $lambda$ be an eigenvalue for orthogonal matrix $textbf{P}$.
$$textbf{P}vec{v}=lambdavec{v},quadvec{v} neq vec{0}$$
$$implies rVert textbf{P}vec{v}lVert = lVert lambdavec{v} lVert implies rVert textbf{P}vec{v} lVert = rvert lambda lvert lVert vec{v} rVert = 1$$
because $lVert vec{v} rVert = 1$



Therefore $lvert lambda rvert = 1$
because $textbf{P}$ is orthonormal matrix.
$$textbf{P} = textbf{P}^{t}$$
Therefore $textbf{P} = textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U} $
$$det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(textbf{U}^{t})det(Lambda)det(textbf{U})$$
$$det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(textbf{U}^{t})det(textbf{U})det(Lambda)$$
$$det(textbf{U}^{t})det(textbf{U}) = 1 $$
(because $textbf{U}$ is orthogonal matrix})



$$det(textbf{P}) = det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(Lambda) = prod_{i=1}^{n}lambda_i = pm 1 $$
$$implies det(textbf{P}) = pm 1$$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The claim isn't true; unitary matrices have $|det{P}| = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – user61527
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:18






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What you are getting is $(det P)^2=1$, but no more than that.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:20










  • $begingroup$
    thx to point it out
    $endgroup$
    – bsdshell
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:21










  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't it be $P^t P = I$ instead of "$implies P^t = P$" at the top?
    $endgroup$
    – Pratyush Sarkar
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:25










  • $begingroup$
    And the proof is $det(P^tP) = det(I) implies det(P)^2 = 1$ which is what you already have. It is as elementary as it can get.
    $endgroup$
    – Pratyush Sarkar
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:30














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


Looking for elementary proof for $rm~det(textbf{P})$ = $pm 1$ if $P$ is an orthogonal matrix. I prefer a proof without using determinant of transpose matrix.



My First Proof, with $det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$



If $P$ is orthogonal matrix, $textbf{P}^{t}=textbf{P}^{-1}$. So,
$$det(textbf{P}^{t}textbf{P})=det(textbf{I}) implies det(textbf{P}^{t}textbf{P}) = 1 implies det(textbf{P}^{t}) det(textbf{P}) = 1$$
because $ det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$.

Therefore, $det(textbf{P}^{t})=det(textbf{P}) = pm 1$.



My Second Proof, without $det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$



Let $lambda$ be an eigenvalue for orthogonal matrix $textbf{P}$.
$$textbf{P}vec{v}=lambdavec{v},quadvec{v} neq vec{0}$$
$$implies rVert textbf{P}vec{v}lVert = lVert lambdavec{v} lVert implies rVert textbf{P}vec{v} lVert = rvert lambda lvert lVert vec{v} rVert = 1$$
because $lVert vec{v} rVert = 1$



Therefore $lvert lambda rvert = 1$
because $textbf{P}$ is orthonormal matrix.
$$textbf{P} = textbf{P}^{t}$$
Therefore $textbf{P} = textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U} $
$$det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(textbf{U}^{t})det(Lambda)det(textbf{U})$$
$$det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(textbf{U}^{t})det(textbf{U})det(Lambda)$$
$$det(textbf{U}^{t})det(textbf{U}) = 1 $$
(because $textbf{U}$ is orthogonal matrix})



$$det(textbf{P}) = det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(Lambda) = prod_{i=1}^{n}lambda_i = pm 1 $$
$$implies det(textbf{P}) = pm 1$$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Looking for elementary proof for $rm~det(textbf{P})$ = $pm 1$ if $P$ is an orthogonal matrix. I prefer a proof without using determinant of transpose matrix.



My First Proof, with $det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$



If $P$ is orthogonal matrix, $textbf{P}^{t}=textbf{P}^{-1}$. So,
$$det(textbf{P}^{t}textbf{P})=det(textbf{I}) implies det(textbf{P}^{t}textbf{P}) = 1 implies det(textbf{P}^{t}) det(textbf{P}) = 1$$
because $ det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$.

Therefore, $det(textbf{P}^{t})=det(textbf{P}) = pm 1$.



My Second Proof, without $det(textbf{P}^{t}) = det(textbf{P})$



Let $lambda$ be an eigenvalue for orthogonal matrix $textbf{P}$.
$$textbf{P}vec{v}=lambdavec{v},quadvec{v} neq vec{0}$$
$$implies rVert textbf{P}vec{v}lVert = lVert lambdavec{v} lVert implies rVert textbf{P}vec{v} lVert = rvert lambda lvert lVert vec{v} rVert = 1$$
because $lVert vec{v} rVert = 1$



Therefore $lvert lambda rvert = 1$
because $textbf{P}$ is orthonormal matrix.
$$textbf{P} = textbf{P}^{t}$$
Therefore $textbf{P} = textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U} $
$$det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(textbf{U}^{t})det(Lambda)det(textbf{U})$$
$$det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(textbf{U}^{t})det(textbf{U})det(Lambda)$$
$$det(textbf{U}^{t})det(textbf{U}) = 1 $$
(because $textbf{U}$ is orthogonal matrix})



$$det(textbf{P}) = det(textbf{U}^{t}Lambdatextbf{U}) = det(Lambda) = prod_{i=1}^{n}lambda_i = pm 1 $$
$$implies det(textbf{P}) = pm 1$$







linear-algebra matrices determinant






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 3 '15 at 2:16







user147263

















asked Oct 11 '13 at 3:15









bsdshellbsdshell

6492719




6492719








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The claim isn't true; unitary matrices have $|det{P}| = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – user61527
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:18






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What you are getting is $(det P)^2=1$, but no more than that.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:20










  • $begingroup$
    thx to point it out
    $endgroup$
    – bsdshell
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:21










  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't it be $P^t P = I$ instead of "$implies P^t = P$" at the top?
    $endgroup$
    – Pratyush Sarkar
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:25










  • $begingroup$
    And the proof is $det(P^tP) = det(I) implies det(P)^2 = 1$ which is what you already have. It is as elementary as it can get.
    $endgroup$
    – Pratyush Sarkar
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:30














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The claim isn't true; unitary matrices have $|det{P}| = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – user61527
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:18






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What you are getting is $(det P)^2=1$, but no more than that.
    $endgroup$
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:20










  • $begingroup$
    thx to point it out
    $endgroup$
    – bsdshell
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:21










  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't it be $P^t P = I$ instead of "$implies P^t = P$" at the top?
    $endgroup$
    – Pratyush Sarkar
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:25










  • $begingroup$
    And the proof is $det(P^tP) = det(I) implies det(P)^2 = 1$ which is what you already have. It is as elementary as it can get.
    $endgroup$
    – Pratyush Sarkar
    Oct 11 '13 at 3:30








3




3




$begingroup$
The claim isn't true; unitary matrices have $|det{P}| = 1$.
$endgroup$
– user61527
Oct 11 '13 at 3:18




$begingroup$
The claim isn't true; unitary matrices have $|det{P}| = 1$.
$endgroup$
– user61527
Oct 11 '13 at 3:18




2




2




$begingroup$
What you are getting is $(det P)^2=1$, but no more than that.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Tamaroff
Oct 11 '13 at 3:20




$begingroup$
What you are getting is $(det P)^2=1$, but no more than that.
$endgroup$
– Pedro Tamaroff
Oct 11 '13 at 3:20












$begingroup$
thx to point it out
$endgroup$
– bsdshell
Oct 11 '13 at 3:21




$begingroup$
thx to point it out
$endgroup$
– bsdshell
Oct 11 '13 at 3:21












$begingroup$
Shouldn't it be $P^t P = I$ instead of "$implies P^t = P$" at the top?
$endgroup$
– Pratyush Sarkar
Oct 11 '13 at 3:25




$begingroup$
Shouldn't it be $P^t P = I$ instead of "$implies P^t = P$" at the top?
$endgroup$
– Pratyush Sarkar
Oct 11 '13 at 3:25












$begingroup$
And the proof is $det(P^tP) = det(I) implies det(P)^2 = 1$ which is what you already have. It is as elementary as it can get.
$endgroup$
– Pratyush Sarkar
Oct 11 '13 at 3:30




$begingroup$
And the proof is $det(P^tP) = det(I) implies det(P)^2 = 1$ which is what you already have. It is as elementary as it can get.
$endgroup$
– Pratyush Sarkar
Oct 11 '13 at 3:30










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

Here is a geometric argument that can be used for real orthogonal matrices: If $T: Vto V$ is an arbitrary linear transformation of a finite dimensional euclidean vector space $V$ then the volumes of arbitrary measurable sets $Asubset V$, in particular of balls or cubes, are multiplied by $bigl|det(T)bigr|$. That is to say, one has
$${rm vol}bigl(T(A)bigr)=bigl|det(T)bigr| {rm vol}(A) .$$
Now an orthogonal transformation $T$ transforms the unit ball $B:=bigl{xin{mathbb R}^nbigm| |x|leq1bigr}$ onto itself, and ${rm vol}(B)>0$. It follows that $|det(T)bigr|=1$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the insight from Christian Blatter, can you explain more about what is "reasonable set A"?
    $endgroup$
    – bsdshell
    Oct 11 '13 at 22:07










  • $begingroup$
    @bsdshell : By reasonable we imply those sets for which the notion of volume is defined, which means those functions for which the indicator function can be integrated (using the Lebesgue integral to be as general as possible).
    $endgroup$
    – Patrick Da Silva
    Oct 13 '13 at 16:49












  • $begingroup$
    Is this a generalization to the higher dimensions of the idea that orthogonal transformations only reflects or rotates in 2D euclidean space, and that is why the volume is invariant under the transformation?
    $endgroup$
    – Aditya
    Jul 23 '18 at 11:31



















3












$begingroup$

The absolute value of the determinant of a real, square matrix is the volume of the parallelepiped whose sides are the columns of the matrix. For an orthogonal matrix, the columns are pairwise orthogonal unit vectors, so this parallelepiped is a cube with side length 1. So the volume is 1, and therefore the determinant is $pm1$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    If $|det(Q)|>1$, then for any positive integer $n$, $|det(Q^n)|=|det(Q)|^n$ will blow up. Since for any positive integer $n$, $Q^n$ is also an orthogonal matrix, whose determinant will not blow up due to the geometric meaning of determinant, we know that $|det(Q^n)|$ will not blow up and $|det(Q)|=1$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f522172%2fa-better-proof-for-detp-pm1-if-p-is-an-orthogonal-matrix%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4












      $begingroup$

      Here is a geometric argument that can be used for real orthogonal matrices: If $T: Vto V$ is an arbitrary linear transformation of a finite dimensional euclidean vector space $V$ then the volumes of arbitrary measurable sets $Asubset V$, in particular of balls or cubes, are multiplied by $bigl|det(T)bigr|$. That is to say, one has
      $${rm vol}bigl(T(A)bigr)=bigl|det(T)bigr| {rm vol}(A) .$$
      Now an orthogonal transformation $T$ transforms the unit ball $B:=bigl{xin{mathbb R}^nbigm| |x|leq1bigr}$ onto itself, and ${rm vol}(B)>0$. It follows that $|det(T)bigr|=1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Thanks for the insight from Christian Blatter, can you explain more about what is "reasonable set A"?
        $endgroup$
        – bsdshell
        Oct 11 '13 at 22:07










      • $begingroup$
        @bsdshell : By reasonable we imply those sets for which the notion of volume is defined, which means those functions for which the indicator function can be integrated (using the Lebesgue integral to be as general as possible).
        $endgroup$
        – Patrick Da Silva
        Oct 13 '13 at 16:49












      • $begingroup$
        Is this a generalization to the higher dimensions of the idea that orthogonal transformations only reflects or rotates in 2D euclidean space, and that is why the volume is invariant under the transformation?
        $endgroup$
        – Aditya
        Jul 23 '18 at 11:31
















      4












      $begingroup$

      Here is a geometric argument that can be used for real orthogonal matrices: If $T: Vto V$ is an arbitrary linear transformation of a finite dimensional euclidean vector space $V$ then the volumes of arbitrary measurable sets $Asubset V$, in particular of balls or cubes, are multiplied by $bigl|det(T)bigr|$. That is to say, one has
      $${rm vol}bigl(T(A)bigr)=bigl|det(T)bigr| {rm vol}(A) .$$
      Now an orthogonal transformation $T$ transforms the unit ball $B:=bigl{xin{mathbb R}^nbigm| |x|leq1bigr}$ onto itself, and ${rm vol}(B)>0$. It follows that $|det(T)bigr|=1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Thanks for the insight from Christian Blatter, can you explain more about what is "reasonable set A"?
        $endgroup$
        – bsdshell
        Oct 11 '13 at 22:07










      • $begingroup$
        @bsdshell : By reasonable we imply those sets for which the notion of volume is defined, which means those functions for which the indicator function can be integrated (using the Lebesgue integral to be as general as possible).
        $endgroup$
        – Patrick Da Silva
        Oct 13 '13 at 16:49












      • $begingroup$
        Is this a generalization to the higher dimensions of the idea that orthogonal transformations only reflects or rotates in 2D euclidean space, and that is why the volume is invariant under the transformation?
        $endgroup$
        – Aditya
        Jul 23 '18 at 11:31














      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$

      Here is a geometric argument that can be used for real orthogonal matrices: If $T: Vto V$ is an arbitrary linear transformation of a finite dimensional euclidean vector space $V$ then the volumes of arbitrary measurable sets $Asubset V$, in particular of balls or cubes, are multiplied by $bigl|det(T)bigr|$. That is to say, one has
      $${rm vol}bigl(T(A)bigr)=bigl|det(T)bigr| {rm vol}(A) .$$
      Now an orthogonal transformation $T$ transforms the unit ball $B:=bigl{xin{mathbb R}^nbigm| |x|leq1bigr}$ onto itself, and ${rm vol}(B)>0$. It follows that $|det(T)bigr|=1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      Here is a geometric argument that can be used for real orthogonal matrices: If $T: Vto V$ is an arbitrary linear transformation of a finite dimensional euclidean vector space $V$ then the volumes of arbitrary measurable sets $Asubset V$, in particular of balls or cubes, are multiplied by $bigl|det(T)bigr|$. That is to say, one has
      $${rm vol}bigl(T(A)bigr)=bigl|det(T)bigr| {rm vol}(A) .$$
      Now an orthogonal transformation $T$ transforms the unit ball $B:=bigl{xin{mathbb R}^nbigm| |x|leq1bigr}$ onto itself, and ${rm vol}(B)>0$. It follows that $|det(T)bigr|=1$.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Oct 12 '13 at 8:07

























      answered Oct 11 '13 at 18:43









      Christian BlatterChristian Blatter

      175k8115327




      175k8115327












      • $begingroup$
        Thanks for the insight from Christian Blatter, can you explain more about what is "reasonable set A"?
        $endgroup$
        – bsdshell
        Oct 11 '13 at 22:07










      • $begingroup$
        @bsdshell : By reasonable we imply those sets for which the notion of volume is defined, which means those functions for which the indicator function can be integrated (using the Lebesgue integral to be as general as possible).
        $endgroup$
        – Patrick Da Silva
        Oct 13 '13 at 16:49












      • $begingroup$
        Is this a generalization to the higher dimensions of the idea that orthogonal transformations only reflects or rotates in 2D euclidean space, and that is why the volume is invariant under the transformation?
        $endgroup$
        – Aditya
        Jul 23 '18 at 11:31


















      • $begingroup$
        Thanks for the insight from Christian Blatter, can you explain more about what is "reasonable set A"?
        $endgroup$
        – bsdshell
        Oct 11 '13 at 22:07










      • $begingroup$
        @bsdshell : By reasonable we imply those sets for which the notion of volume is defined, which means those functions for which the indicator function can be integrated (using the Lebesgue integral to be as general as possible).
        $endgroup$
        – Patrick Da Silva
        Oct 13 '13 at 16:49












      • $begingroup$
        Is this a generalization to the higher dimensions of the idea that orthogonal transformations only reflects or rotates in 2D euclidean space, and that is why the volume is invariant under the transformation?
        $endgroup$
        – Aditya
        Jul 23 '18 at 11:31
















      $begingroup$
      Thanks for the insight from Christian Blatter, can you explain more about what is "reasonable set A"?
      $endgroup$
      – bsdshell
      Oct 11 '13 at 22:07




      $begingroup$
      Thanks for the insight from Christian Blatter, can you explain more about what is "reasonable set A"?
      $endgroup$
      – bsdshell
      Oct 11 '13 at 22:07












      $begingroup$
      @bsdshell : By reasonable we imply those sets for which the notion of volume is defined, which means those functions for which the indicator function can be integrated (using the Lebesgue integral to be as general as possible).
      $endgroup$
      – Patrick Da Silva
      Oct 13 '13 at 16:49






      $begingroup$
      @bsdshell : By reasonable we imply those sets for which the notion of volume is defined, which means those functions for which the indicator function can be integrated (using the Lebesgue integral to be as general as possible).
      $endgroup$
      – Patrick Da Silva
      Oct 13 '13 at 16:49














      $begingroup$
      Is this a generalization to the higher dimensions of the idea that orthogonal transformations only reflects or rotates in 2D euclidean space, and that is why the volume is invariant under the transformation?
      $endgroup$
      – Aditya
      Jul 23 '18 at 11:31




      $begingroup$
      Is this a generalization to the higher dimensions of the idea that orthogonal transformations only reflects or rotates in 2D euclidean space, and that is why the volume is invariant under the transformation?
      $endgroup$
      – Aditya
      Jul 23 '18 at 11:31











      3












      $begingroup$

      The absolute value of the determinant of a real, square matrix is the volume of the parallelepiped whose sides are the columns of the matrix. For an orthogonal matrix, the columns are pairwise orthogonal unit vectors, so this parallelepiped is a cube with side length 1. So the volume is 1, and therefore the determinant is $pm1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        3












        $begingroup$

        The absolute value of the determinant of a real, square matrix is the volume of the parallelepiped whose sides are the columns of the matrix. For an orthogonal matrix, the columns are pairwise orthogonal unit vectors, so this parallelepiped is a cube with side length 1. So the volume is 1, and therefore the determinant is $pm1$.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          The absolute value of the determinant of a real, square matrix is the volume of the parallelepiped whose sides are the columns of the matrix. For an orthogonal matrix, the columns are pairwise orthogonal unit vectors, so this parallelepiped is a cube with side length 1. So the volume is 1, and therefore the determinant is $pm1$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The absolute value of the determinant of a real, square matrix is the volume of the parallelepiped whose sides are the columns of the matrix. For an orthogonal matrix, the columns are pairwise orthogonal unit vectors, so this parallelepiped is a cube with side length 1. So the volume is 1, and therefore the determinant is $pm1$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Oct 11 '13 at 18:44









          Andreas BlassAndreas Blass

          50.2k452109




          50.2k452109























              0












              $begingroup$

              If $|det(Q)|>1$, then for any positive integer $n$, $|det(Q^n)|=|det(Q)|^n$ will blow up. Since for any positive integer $n$, $Q^n$ is also an orthogonal matrix, whose determinant will not blow up due to the geometric meaning of determinant, we know that $|det(Q^n)|$ will not blow up and $|det(Q)|=1$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                If $|det(Q)|>1$, then for any positive integer $n$, $|det(Q^n)|=|det(Q)|^n$ will blow up. Since for any positive integer $n$, $Q^n$ is also an orthogonal matrix, whose determinant will not blow up due to the geometric meaning of determinant, we know that $|det(Q^n)|$ will not blow up and $|det(Q)|=1$.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  If $|det(Q)|>1$, then for any positive integer $n$, $|det(Q^n)|=|det(Q)|^n$ will blow up. Since for any positive integer $n$, $Q^n$ is also an orthogonal matrix, whose determinant will not blow up due to the geometric meaning of determinant, we know that $|det(Q^n)|$ will not blow up and $|det(Q)|=1$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  If $|det(Q)|>1$, then for any positive integer $n$, $|det(Q^n)|=|det(Q)|^n$ will blow up. Since for any positive integer $n$, $Q^n$ is also an orthogonal matrix, whose determinant will not blow up due to the geometric meaning of determinant, we know that $|det(Q^n)|$ will not blow up and $|det(Q)|=1$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Dec 27 '18 at 0:32









                  user376343

                  3,9584829




                  3,9584829










                  answered Dec 27 '18 at 0:21









                  Kangquan LiKangquan Li

                  1




                  1






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f522172%2fa-better-proof-for-detp-pm1-if-p-is-an-orthogonal-matrix%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Wiesbaden

                      Marschland

                      Dieringhausen