Example 5.4.1.
Consider \(T_A\colon \R^2\rightarrow \R^2\) where
\begin{equation*}
A=\frac{1}{5}\begin{amatrix}[rr]-3\amp 4\\ 4\amp 3 \end{amatrix}\text{.}
\end{equation*}
It turns out that \(T=T_A\) has a simple geometric description, though you would not have guessed this from \(A\text{.}\) To reveal the geometry at play, we represent \(T\) with respect to the orthogonal basis \(B'=(\boldv_1=(1,2), \boldv_2=(2,-1))\text{.}\) Since
\begin{align*}
T((1,2)) \amp=A\colvec{1 \\ 2 }=\colvec{1 \\ 2}=1(1,2)+0(2,-1) \\
T_A((2,-1)) \amp=A\colvec{2 \\ -1}=-(2,-1)=0(1,2)+(-1)(2,-1) \text{,}
\end{align*}
it follows that
\begin{equation*}
[T]_{B'}=\begin{amatrix}[rr] 1\amp 0\\ 0\amp -1 \end{amatrix}\text{.}
\end{equation*}
The alternative representation given by \(A'=[T]_{B'}\) reveals that \(T\) is none other than reflection through the line \(\ell=\Span\{(1,2)\}\text{!}\) How? Given any vector \(\boldv\in \R^2\text{,}\) we can write
\begin{equation}
\boldv=c_1\boldv_1+c_2\boldv_2\text{.}\tag{5.4.1}
\end{equation}
Note that since \(\boldv_1\) and \(\boldv_2\) are orthogonal, we have \(c_1\boldv_1\in \ell\) and \(c_2\boldv_2\in \ell^\perp\text{:}\) i.e., (5.4.1) is the orthogonal decomposition of \(\boldv\) with respect to \(\ell\text{.}\) Next, the representation \(A'=[T]_{B'}\) tells us that \(T(\boldv_1)=\boldv_1\) and \(T(\boldv_2)=-\boldv_2\text{.}\) It follows that \(T(\boldv)=c_1\boldv_1-c_2\boldv_2\text{.}\) This is nothing more than a vector description of reflection through the line \(\ell\text{,}\) as Figure 5.4.2 makes clear.