Explanation of a Line of a proof in Axler Linear Algebra Done Right 3r

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific step in a proof from Axler's "Linear Algebra Done Right," focusing on the theorem regarding the matrix of the product of linear maps. Participants seek clarification on the mathematical expressions and formatting used in the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests help in understanding a step in the proof of Theorem 3.43, specifically how the composition of linear maps relates to their matrices.
  • The participant provides definitions of the matrix of a linear map and matrix multiplication as context for their question.
  • Another participant points out formatting issues in the original post, suggesting that the mathematical expressions were not clearly presented.
  • Some participants express frustration with the formatting errors, indicating that they hinder understanding and response to the question.
  • There is a suggestion for the original poster to practice LaTeX formatting and to consider creating a new thread for clarity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the original post contains formatting issues that need to be resolved. However, there is no consensus on the specific mathematical content or the clarity of the proof step in question, as some participants have difficulty understanding the original query.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the clarity of mathematical notation and the challenges of communicating complex ideas in a forum setting. The unresolved formatting issues may affect the ability of participants to engage with the mathematical content effectively.

MidgetDwarf
Messages
1,608
Reaction score
717
∈Was wondering if anyone here could help me with an explanation as to how Axler arrived at a particular step in a proof.

These are the relevant definitions listed in the book:

Definition of Matrix of a Linear Map, M(T):

Suppose ##T∈L(V,W)## and ##v_1,...,v_n## is a basis of V and ##w_1 ,...,w_m## is a basis of W. The matrix of T with respect to these bases is the m-by-n matrix M(T) whose entries ##A_j , _k## are defined by ## T_v_k = A_1,k w_1 + ... +A_m,k w_m ##

Definition of Matrix Multiplication:

Suppose A is an m-by-n matrix and C is an n-by-p matrix. Then AC is defined to the m - by- p matrix whose entry in row j, column k, is given by the following equation: ## (AC)_{j,k} = \sum_{r=1}^n A_j,r C_r,k ##

Now for the Theorem of the proof I need help with.

Theorem 3.43 (page 74-75): The Matrix Of The Product Of Linear Maps:

If T∈L(U,V) and SεL(V,W) , then M(ST)=M(S)M(T).

Proof:

Assume ## v_1 , ... , v_n ## is a basis of V and ##w_1 , ... , w_m ## is a basis of W. Suppose also that we have another vector space U and that ## u_1 ,..., u_p ## is a basis of U. Consider linear maps T : U →V and S : V→W. ( I proved easier that the composition of linear maps is a linear maps)

Suppose M(S) = A and M(T) + C. For 1≤ k ≤ p , we have

##(ST)u_k ## = ## S(\sum_{r=1}^n C_r,k v_r ) = \sum_{r=1}^n C_r,k Sv_r ## ##= \sum_{r=1}^n C_r,k \sum_{j=1}^m A_j,r w_j##
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi. There seem to be some formatting issues with the post. Please resolve those.
 
Wow my Latek came out wrong. Ill try some practice with easier code, before reposting this question. If anyone is interested, it is the 3rd line to 4th line on page 74 of Axler Linear Algebra Done Right 3rd ed.
 
MidgetDwarf said:
Wow my Latek came out wrong. Ill try some practice with easier code, before reposting this question. If anyone is interested, it is the 3rd line to 4th line on page 74 of Axler Linear Algebra Done Right 3rd ed.
Please rewrite your question in a new thread. Not all of us have the book.

I have tried to correct your post, but you made too many mistakes and I didn't always know what was meant. Maybe you should read
https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/
again and make more use of the preview function.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 587159
Math_QED said:
There seem to be some formatting issues with the post. Please resolve those.
I have fixed some of the problems.
The main problems I saw were multiple subscripts and using \n for exponents.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K