Equivalence of Adjoint and Conjugate Transpose in Non-Orthogonal Bases?

  • Thread starter Thread starter balletomane
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transpose
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between the adjoint of a linear map and the conjugate transpose of its matrix representation, particularly in the context of non-orthonormal bases. It is established that the adjoint is equivalent to the conjugate transpose only when the basis is orthonormal. The example provided involves the linear map T(a+bx+cx^2)=bx, which is not self-adjoint, and its matrix representation with respect to the basis (1,x,x^2) reveals a non-standard relationship due to the basis not being orthonormal. The conversation clarifies that the inner product plays a crucial role in determining orthonormality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear maps and their properties
  • Familiarity with matrix representations of linear transformations
  • Knowledge of inner products and orthonormal bases
  • Concept of adjoint operators in linear algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of adjoint operators in various inner product spaces
  • Learn about the implications of orthonormality in linear algebra
  • Explore the concept of conjugate transpose in detail, particularly in non-orthonormal contexts
  • Investigate the relationship between linear maps and their matrix representations across different bases
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of linear algebra, and anyone interested in the theoretical aspects of linear transformations and their representations in different bases.

balletomane
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Is the adjoint of linear map only guaranteed to be equivalent to the conjugate transpose of the matrix when the matrix is taken with respect to an orthonormal basis? Is it sometimes still equivalent even when the basis is not orthonormal?

For the problem I'm working on, I have T(a+bx+cx^2)=bx, which is not self adjoint. Then the matrix wrt to the basis (1,x, x^2) is zero everywhere, but 1 in the second row, second column. The only explanation I can come up with for why it's matrix equals the conj. transpose of the matrix even though it is not self adjoint is that the basis is not orthonormal.

(sorry I don't know how to format things properly)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since every basis is, with respect to some inner product, orthonomal, I don't think this is the issue...

You say 'the linear map' and the matrix'. Linear maps and matrices are different things. A matrix is a representation of a linear map with respect to some basis. It does not make sense to talk of a linear map being conjugate to a matrix. Matrices are conjugate to matrices.
 
Sorry, I was being sloppy. I meant the matrix of the linear map. I guess I'm still a little unclear on whether the basis determines if you can consider the matrix of the adjoint as the conjugate transpose of the matrix of the map .

Either way, I hadn't noticed the point about the orthonormality depending on the inner product. So thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K