Suppose a 3D configuration of points is given, $X\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times 3}$, and a matrix $Q\in\mathbb{3\times 2}$, with orthonormal columns. Now, suppose a mapping to 2D is obtained as $$Y=XQ.$$ Could it be safely assumed that $Y$ simply corresponds to a rotated or reflected configuration $X$ restricted to first 2 axes? I read that the application of orthogonal matrices, as in the above, preserves isometries in Euclidean space, meaning that it should correspond a rotation, reflection and translation.
However, in
https://www2.bc.edu/~reederma/Linalg17.pdf
(p.4), it is stated that "Orthogonal matrices with determinant $-1$ are not rotations, but most of them are not reflections either". On the other hand, the statement from
http://www.math.utk.edu/~freire/teaching/m251f10/m251s10orthogonal.pdf
(p.1) makes a general statement on orthogonal matrices corresponding to a rotation and reflection. A claim that a $3\times 3$ orthogonal matrix $Q$ with determinant $-1$ corresponds to a rotation + reflection is given in
http://ocw.nthu.edu.tw/ocw/upload/20/201/AP1-Operator.pdf
(p. 3). As you may observe, the claims are not the same, i.e., there is no certainty that the application of any orthogonal $Q$ corresponds to a rigid transformation of on a configuration (rotation and/or reflection). So, I'm interested if a general statement that the application of an orthogonal matrix simply corresponds to a rigid transformation.
.....................
Another concept that adds to confusion is the orthogonal projector matrix, $P\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$. What does $$Z=PX$$ imply, and how does it differ from the above $Y=XQ$?