A Question on Notation about Linear Algebra

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation and representation of vectors in linear algebra. Participants explore different ways to express vectors, including the use of identity matrices and alternative notations like function mappings.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss whether vectors can be represented using identity matrices and question the appropriateness of various notational forms, including function-like mappings for vectors. There is also consideration of simplifying vector notation to reduce writing effort.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance on the validity of different notational approaches, while others express confusion about the application of certain notations. Multiple interpretations of vector representation are being explored without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the complexity of using certain notations and the potential for confusion regarding the identity matrix versus unit vectors. There is also a discussion about the implications of writing vectors in different forms, such as column versus row vectors.

GreenPrint
Messages
1,186
Reaction score
0
Could I write
v = 4i + 3j -2k as
v =
[ 4 |
| 3 | * I_3
| -2 ]

were I_3 is the 3x3 identity matrix and the other thing it's multiplied by is a 3x1 matrix of values 4,3,-2

I also had a question about the notation
f(x) = x^2 + 3
can be written as
f: x |-> x^2 + 3

can I write vectors in this matter as well if instead
v = 4x^2 i + 3x j -2x k
as
v: x |-> 4x^2 i + 3x j - 2x k
or something like
v: x |->
[ 4x |
| 3 | * x * I_3
| -2 ]

I'm sort of confused by
f: x |-> and just want to make sure I'm applying it correctly and am wondering if I can use the identity matrix instead of the unit vectors?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
GreenPrint said:
Could I write
v = 4i + 3j -2k as
v =
[ 4 |
| 3 | * I_3
| -2 ]

were I_3 is the 3x3 identity matrix and the other thing it's multiplied by is a 3x1 matrix of values 4,3,-2
Sure, but I think it adds needless complexity.
GreenPrint said:
I also had a question about the notation
f(x) = x^2 + 3
can be written as
f: x |-> x^2 + 3

can I write vectors in this matter as well if instead
v = 4x^2 i + 3x j -2x k
as
v: x |-> 4x^2 i + 3x j - 2x k
This looks OK. Your notation is saying that v maps a number x to a vector-valued function.
GreenPrint said:
or something like
v: x |->
[ 4x |
| 3 | * x * I_3
| -2 ]
I don't see anything wrong with this, but it seems like overkill.
GreenPrint said:
I'm sort of confused by
f: x |-> and just want to make sure I'm applying it correctly and am wondering if I can use the identity matrix instead of the unit vectors?
 
Can I write
v = 4i + 3j -2k
as v =
[ 4 |
| 3 |
| -2 ]
or this way
v = [ 4 3 -2]?

I believe this writing it like this would take less time. All you need is three numbers and two brackets [ ]. Writing it like this 4i + 3j -2k requires you write three numbers, three unit vectors, and any plus signs that might be needed. I'm just not sure that
v = [ 4 3 -2] = 4i + 3j -2k is true or maybe if it was a 3x1 matrix instead of a 1x3 this be true? If either of these are I rather would because it's less writing.
 
I agree with you about the i, j, k notation taking more effort to write, and usually write vectors in this form: <4, 3, -2>. If they really need to be column vectors, you can add a T superscript (for transpose), like this: <4, 3, -2>T.
 
Mark44 said:
I agree with you about the i, j, k notation taking more effort to write, and usually write vectors in this form: <4, 3, -2>. If they really need to be column vectors, you can add a T superscript (for transpose), like this: <4, 3, -2>T.

I hate the i, j, k mainly because my handwriting is terrible and I find i and k to be incredibly hard to write without making everything look messy

I also had a question about the notation
f(x) = x^2 + 3
can be written as
f: x |-> x^2 + 3

nono, it's symbol, domain, codomain, correspondance
[itex]f: \Re \rightarrow \Re ; x \rightarrow x^2+3[/itex]
the script R is both the doman and the codomain (R+, the positive reals is technically the codomain(technically the complex numbers is the domain and the codomain))
the x -> x^2 + 3 is the rule of correspondance

am wondering if I can use the identity matrix instead of the unit vectors?
if you really wanted to you could but there isn't really much point since you'd end up writing 6 extra zeros

Also you can write [itex]\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}[/itex] as [itex]\begin{pmatrix} x & y & z\end{pmatrix}^T[/itex] or [itex]\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}^T[/itex] as [itex]\begin{pmatrix} x & y & z\end{pmatrix}[/itex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K