Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byKorbin Bracy Modified over 4 years ago

1
Determinants and Areas

2
The intention here is to prove that application of a 2 x 2 matrix to regions of the plane multiplies the area by the absolute value of the determinant of the matrix.

3
Begin with a unit square: (1,0) (0,1)

4
Transform this by a matrix (1,0) (0,1)

5
Transform this by a matrix (1,0) (0,1) (a,c)

6
Transform this by a matrix (1,0) (0,1) (b,d)

7
(1,0) (0,1) (b,d) (a,c) So the unit square is transformed into a parallelogram (a+b,c+d)

8
(1,0) (0,1) (b,d) (a,c) (a+b,c+d) We need to show that the area of the parallelogram is |ad-bc|

9
(1,0) (0,1) (b,d) (a,c) (a+b,c+d) The base of the parallelogram has length (a 2 +c 2 ) 1/2 (a 2 +c 2 ) 1/2

10
(1,0) (0,1) (b,d) (a,c) (a+b,c+d) We need the altitude (a 2 +c 2 ) 1/2 ?

11
(1,0) (0,1) (b,d) (a,c) (a+b,c+d) The residual projection of (b,d) onto (a,c) is an altitude

12
(1,0) (0,1) (b,d) (a,c) (a+b,c+d) This projection is (a 2 +c 2 ) 1/2 ?

13
(1,0) (0,1) (b,d) (a,c) (a+b,c+d) By the Pythagorean Theorem its length squared is the difference in the squared lengths of (b,d) and …

14
(1,0) (0,1) (b,d) (a,c) (a+b,c+d) By the Pythagorean Theorem its length squared is the difference in the squared lengths of (b,d) and the projection of (b.d) onto (a,c)

16
So the altitude is

17
(1,0) (0,1) (b,d) (a,c) (a+b,c+d) So the area is (a 2 +c 2 ) 1/2 |ad-bc| ---------- (a 2 +c 2 ) 1/2

18
(1,0) (0,1) (b,d) (a,c) (a+b,c+d) (a 2 +c 2 ) 1/2 |ad-bc| ---------- (a 2 +c 2 ) 1/2 But the determinant of is ad-bc, so the area has been multiplied by |determinant|.

19
We proved that application of a 2 x 2 matrix to a unit square of the plane multiplies the area by the absolute value of the determinant of the matrix.

20
What about the areas of any figures in the plane? Under transformation are they simply multiplied by the absolute value of the determinant?

21
If we transform small boxes, the area of each box is multiplied by the absolute value of the determinant of the matrix.

22
But the area of any figure is approximated by the sum of the areas of small boxes contained in the figure

23
So the area of the transformed figure is the area of the original figure multiplied by the absolute value of the determinant of the matrix.

24
Let’s use this for a nifty application. Suppose we first transform the square using the matrix A. We now know how the area will change A

25
Let’s use this for a nifty application. Suppose we first transform the square using the matrix A. We now know how the area will change – by a factor of |det(A)|. A But then we do a second transformation using matrix B: the area will then change by a factor of |det(B)|. B

26
Let’s use this for a nifty application. Suppose we first transform the square using the matrix A. We now know how the area will change – by a factor of |det(A)|. A But then we do a second transformation using matrix B: the area will then change by a factor of |det(B)|. Thus, relative to the original square the area has changed by |det(A)|x|det(B)|. B

27
We could have skipped the intermediate step, however, and transformed the square by the product BA. BA

28
We could have skipped the intermediate step, however, and transformed the square by the product BA. The area must change by the factor |det(BA)|. BA

29
We could have skipped the intermediate step, however, and transformed the square by the product BA. The area must change by the factor |det(BA)|. We have just proved that |det(A)| x|det(B)| = |det(BA)|, and by reversing the roles of A and B we have |det(B)| x|det(A)| = |det(AB)|, BA

30
We could have skipped the intermediate step, however, and transformed the square by the product BA. The area must change by the factor |det(BA)|. We have just proved that |det(A)| x|det(B)| = |det(BA)|, and by reversing the roles of A and B we have |det(B)| x|det(A)| = |det(AB)|, so |det(AB)| = |det(B)| x|det(A)| = |det(A)| x|det(B)| = |det(BA)|. BA

31
We actually could prove that the absolute values could be dropped so that det(A) x det(B) = det (AB) = det (BA)

32
We actually could prove that the absolute values could be dropped so that det(A) x det(B) = det (AB) = det (BA) and this holds for any n by n matrices.

Similar presentations

OK

6 6.1 © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. Orthogonality and Least Squares INNER PRODUCT, LENGTH, AND ORTHOGONALITY.

6 6.1 © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. Orthogonality and Least Squares INNER PRODUCT, LENGTH, AND ORTHOGONALITY.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google

Ppt on leverages business Ppt on job rotation process Ppt on pre ignition causes Ppt on e learning system Best ppt on steve jobs Ppt on magnets and electromagnets Ppt on transportation in human beings Ppt on network security basics Make a ppt on election system in india Ppt on planet venus