Register to reply

Operator and function

by ajayguhan
Tags: function, operator, opertaor
Share this thread:
ajayguhan
#1
Oct23-13, 11:21 AM
ajayguhan's Avatar
P: 126
What is the exact technical difference between a linear operator and linear function?
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Professor quantifies how 'one thing leads to another'
Team announces construction of a formal computer-verified proof of the Kepler conjecture
Iranian is first woman to win 'Nobel Prize of maths' (Update)
jedishrfu
#2
Oct23-13, 11:33 AM
P: 2,938
Wikipedia gives a good description of the similarity between the two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_operator
R136a1
#3
Oct23-13, 12:42 PM
Newcomer
P: 341
To me, they are the same thing.

economicsnerd
#4
Oct23-13, 12:54 PM
P: 233
Operator and function

I use linear function, linear operator, linear map, and linear transformation all interchangeably, though you come to notice that different communities of mathematicians have different preferred terminology.
Jorriss
#5
Oct23-13, 04:30 PM
P: 1,054
Though I do not believe this is standard if IIRC, Axler defines linear maps (functions) as maps between arbitrary vector spaces but reserves the term operator for maps between the same vector space.

Most use the terms interchangeably in my experience.
chiro
#6
Oct23-13, 08:20 PM
P: 4,573
I think linear operators must be square matrices will linear maps can be any sort of configuration (i.e. non-square).
Mark44
#7
Oct23-13, 08:30 PM
Mentor
P: 21,255
Quote Quote by Jorriss View Post
Though I do not believe this is standard if IIRC, Axler defines linear maps (functions) as maps between arbitrary vector spaces but reserves the term operator for maps between the same vector space.
Quote Quote by chiro View Post
I think linear operators must be square matrices will linear maps can be any sort of configuration (i.e. non-square).
That's how linear operators were distinguished from linear transformations when I learned about them. I.e., a linear operator maps a space to itself, hence the matrix for the operator is necessarily square.
pwsnafu
#8
Oct24-13, 01:08 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 827
Quote Quote by Mark44 View Post
That's how linear operators were distinguished from linear transformations when I learned about them. I.e., a linear operator maps a space to itself, hence the matrix for the operator is necessarily square.
I've never see "linear transform" used with infinite dimensional spaces. It always seems to be "operator theory" or "bounded linear operator" or "closed operator".

Linear transform seems to be more of a term you see in linear algebra rather than linear analysis.
ajayguhan
#9
Oct24-13, 08:16 AM
ajayguhan's Avatar
P: 126
Can we say that linear operator and linear function are generally used as synonyms but to be more precise and technically linear operator denotes square matrix since it maps space to itself whereas linear function denotes a rectangular matrix since it maps a vector of one space to different space.

Is that right?
Mark44
#10
Oct24-13, 10:41 AM
Mentor
P: 21,255
That's pretty close. I would say it this way: a linear operator maps a vector space to itself, which implies that the matrix is square. A linear function maps an arbitrary vector space to a possibly different vector space, which implies that the matrix is not square if the spaces are of different dimension.
R136a1
#11
Oct24-13, 12:26 PM
Newcomer
P: 341
Quote Quote by pwsnafu View Post
I've never see "linear transform" used with infinite dimensional spaces. It always seems to be "operator theory" or "bounded linear operator" or "closed operator".

Linear transform seems to be more of a term you see in linear algebra rather than linear analysis.
Well, you do have Fourier transforms, Gelfand transforms, Laplace transforms, Hilbert transforms,... All of these are on space which are usually pretty infinite-dimensional.

Quote Quote by ajayguhan View Post
Can we say that linear operator and linear function are generally used as synonyms but to be more precise and technically linear operator denotes square matrix since it maps space to itself whereas linear function denotes a rectangular matrix since it maps a vector of one space to different space.

Is that right?
I wouldn't say "more precise". It is simply a word with two different meanings. For some people, it are synonyms, for other people there is a distinction. So it depends on the author.

Quote Quote by Mark44 View Post
That's pretty close. I would say it this way: a linear operator maps a vector space to itself, which implies that the matrix is square. A linear function maps an arbitrary vector space to a possibly different vector space, which implies that the matrix is not square if the spaces are of different dimension.
I would usually use the term endomorphism for a map of a vector space to itself. But of course, other people may use other terminology. No problem with that.
pwsnafu
#12
Oct24-13, 06:19 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 827
Quote Quote by R136a1 View Post
Well, you do have Fourier transforms, Gelfand transforms, Laplace transforms, Hilbert transforms,... All of these are on space which are usually pretty infinite-dimensional.
Completely forgot about integral transforms. I was thinking about thinking about things like Open Mapping Theorem


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Operator acting on the function Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
Mean value of function of ladder operator Advanced Physics Homework 0
Gradient operator of a function Calculus & Beyond Homework 3
Operator in exponential function and generating function Quantum Physics 1
Operator is it function? Quantum Physics 12