Column Spaces and Rank of Matrix Multiplication: Insights and Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter loli12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Column
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving two key properties of matrix multiplication involving matrices A, B, and C, where C = AB. It establishes that the column space of C is a subspace of the column space of A, and that the rank of C is less than or equal to the minimum of the ranks of A and B. The proof utilizes the definitions of column spaces and ranks, demonstrating that every vector in the column space of C can be expressed as a linear combination of vectors in the column space of A, and similarly for B.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear algebra concepts such as column spaces and ranks of matrices.
  • Familiarity with matrix multiplication and its properties.
  • Knowledge of linear combinations and vector spaces.
  • Ability to work with matrix transposes and their implications on row and column spaces.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of matrix ranks in more depth, focusing on the Rank-Nullity Theorem.
  • Learn about the implications of the row space and column space relationships in matrix theory.
  • Explore examples of matrix multiplication to solidify understanding of column space relationships.
  • Investigate the use of linear transformations and their connection to matrix rank and column spaces.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying linear algebra, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to matrix multiplication and its properties.

loli12
can anyone help me with this?

Let A be in R^mxn, B in R^nxr, and C=AB. Show that:
(i) The column space of C is a subspace of the column space of A;
(ii) Rank(C) is smaller than or equal to min{rank(A), rank(B)}.

For (i) I tried to show that C can be written as linear combination of A but seems like I am missing something...

Please help! Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For (i) you want to show each column of C is a linear combination of the column's of A. How would you find the first column of C?

For (ii), rank(C) is the dimension of it's column space, so using part (i), what can you say about it compared to rank(A)? To compare it to rank(B), you'll need the row space analogue of part (i), "the row space of C is a subspace of the row space of B". You can get this from part (i) with little effort by taking transposes, which handily converts a question about rows to a question about columns.
 
for reaching out for help with this problem! First, let's define the column spaces of A, B, and C. The column space of a matrix is the span of its column vectors. So for matrix A, the column space is the set of all possible linear combinations of its column vectors. Similarly, for B and C, their column spaces are the sets of all possible linear combinations of their respective column vectors.

To show that the column space of C is a subspace of the column space of A, we need to show that every vector in the column space of C can be written as a linear combination of vectors in the column space of A. So let x be a vector in the column space of C. This means that there exists a vector y such that Cx = y. Since C = AB, we have that Ax = Bx = y. This shows that y is in the column space of A, and thus x can be written as a linear combination of vectors in the column space of A. Therefore, the column space of C is a subspace of the column space of A.

For (ii), we can use the fact that the rank of a matrix is equal to the dimension of its column space. So, we have that rank(C) = dim(col(C)) and rank(A) = dim(col(A)). Using part (i), we know that the column space of C is a subspace of the column space of A. This means that the dimension of col(C) is less than or equal to the dimension of col(A). Similarly, we can show that rank(C) is also less than or equal to rank(B). Therefore, we have that rank(C) is smaller than or equal to min{rank(A), rank(B)}, as desired.

I hope this helps clarify the proof for you. Keep practicing and don't hesitate to reach out for help if you need it in the future!
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K