Finding the Matrix Associated with a Linear Mapping on a Real Matrix

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rputra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mapping Matrix
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the matrix associated with a linear mapping \( F \) defined on two-by-two real matrices, specifically the mapping that returns the sum of a matrix and its transpose. Participants explore the properties of this mapping, its representation in terms of a matrix, and the implications of dimensionality in the context of linear transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the mapping \( F \) can be expressed as \( F(M) = M + M^T \) and seeks to find a matrix \( A \) such that \( F(M) = AM \).
  • Another participant argues that such a matrix \( A \) does not exist, suggesting that if \( AM = M + M^T \) must hold for all matrices \( M \), it leads to contradictions.
  • There is a clarification that the mapping \( F \) should be considered as a linear map from \( M_{2 \times 2}(\mathbb{R}) \) to itself, implying a dimensionality of 4.
  • A later reply introduces the idea of representing the two-by-two matrix as a vector in \( \mathbb{R}^4 \) and discusses the linear transformation associated with this representation.
  • One participant proposes a matrix representation of \( F \) and later receives feedback indicating a miscalculation, prompting a revision of the proposed matrix.
  • Another participant inquires about the relationship between the chosen basis for the matrices and the resulting matrix representation of the mapping.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of the matrix \( A \) and the correct representation of the mapping \( F \). The discussion includes corrections and refinements of earlier claims, indicating that no consensus has been reached on the final form of the matrix associated with the mapping.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the mapping \( F \) operates in a higher-dimensional space, and there are unresolved questions regarding the implications of the chosen basis for the matrix representation. The discussion reflects uncertainty about the correct formulation of the matrix associated with the mapping.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying linear algebra, particularly in the context of matrix representations of linear transformations and the properties of symmetric matrices.

rputra
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
I am working on a two-by-two real matrix $M$, with a linear mapping $F$ that returns the sum of $M$ and its transpose. I need to find out the matrix that is associated with the mapping. To the best of my understanding:

$$
M + M^T =
\begin{bmatrix}
r &s\\
t &u
\end{bmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
r &t\\
s &u
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
2r &s+t\\
s+t &2u
\end{bmatrix}
,$$
therefore I need to find $A$ of two-by-two of real entries, such that for any $M,$

$$
F(M) = AM =
\begin{bmatrix}
2r &s+t\\
s+t &2u
\end{bmatrix}
.$$

But I am lost on finding the $A,$ any hints or help would be very much appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and effort.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tarrant said:
I am working on a two-by-two real matrix $M$, with a linear mapping $F$ that returns the sum of $M$ and its transpose. I need to find out the matrix that is associated with the mapping. To the best of my understanding:

$$
M + M^T =
\begin{bmatrix}
r &s\\
t &u
\end{bmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
r &t\\
s &u
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
2r &s+t\\
s+t &2u
\end{bmatrix}
,$$
therefore I need to find $A$ of two-by-two of real entries, such that for any $M,$

$$
F(M) = AM =
\begin{bmatrix}
2r &s+t\\
s+t &2u
\end{bmatrix}
.$$

But I am lost on finding the $A,$ any hints or help would be very much appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and effort.
Such a matrix $A$ does not exist. Just take $a, b, c, d$ to be the entries of $A$. If you want $AM=M+M^t$ to be true for all $M$, you'll see $A$ cannot exist.
 
caffeinemachine said:
Such a matrix $A$ does not exist. Just take $a, b, c, d$ to be the entries of $A$. If you want $AM=M+M^t$ to be true for all $M$, you'll see $A$ cannot exist.

Oh, that is strange! Let me double check and I will get back with you. Thanks again.
 
caffeinemachine said:
Such a matrix $A$ does not exist. Just take $a, b, c, d$ to be the entries of $A$. If you want $AM=M+M^t$ to be true for all $M$, you'll see $A$ cannot exist.

Forget about what I wrote after "To the best of my understanding...," they are totally erroneous and that was what distracted you in the first response. It turned out the mapping should be $F: M_{2 \times 2}(\mathbb R) \rightarrow M_{2 \times 2}(\mathbb R)$, such that $F$ should be have domain and co-domain of dimension 4, simply because a $2 \times 2$ matrix has dimension of 4. (Does it mean that the matrix then will be $4 \times 4$?)

I hope this should clear you up and I am still waiting for you to take a second look. Thank you and am looking forward to hear from you again soon.

PS. Congratulation on your new badge!
 
Last edited:
Tarrant said:
Forget about what I wrote after "To the best of my understanding...," they are totally erroneous and that was what distracted you in the first response. It turned out the mapping should be $F: M_{2 \times 2}(\mathbb R) \rightarrow M_{2 \times 2}(\mathbb R)$, such that $F$ should be have domain and co-domain of dimension 4, simply because a $2 \times 2$ matrix has dimension of 4. (Does it mean that the matrix then will be $4 \times 4$?)

I hope this should clear you up and I am still waiting for you to take a second look. Thank you and am looking forward to hear from you again soon.

PS. Congratulation on your new badge!

Hey thanks for the wishes.
___
We can think of $M_{2\times 2}(\mathbf R)$ is as $\mathbf R^4$ under the correspondence
$$\begin{bmatrix}r& s\\ t & u\end{bmatrix}\leftrightarrow (r, s, t, u)$$
So basically we have a linear map $T:\mathbf R^4\to \mathbf R^4$ sending $(r, s, t, u)$ to $(2r, s+t, s+t, 2u)$. What you want is to find the matrix of this linear map (with respect to some basis of your choice). Do you how to proceed from here?
 
caffeinemachine said:
Hey thanks for the wishes.
___
We can think of $M_{2\times 2}(\mathbf R)$ is as $\mathbf R^4$ under the correspondence
$$\begin{bmatrix}r& s\\ t & u\end{bmatrix}\leftrightarrow (r, s, t, u)$$
So basically we have a linear map $T:\mathbf R^4\to \mathbf R^4$ sending $(r, s, t, u)$ to $(2r, s+t, s+t, 2u)$. What you want is to find the matrix of this linear map (with respect to some basis of your choice). Do you how to proceed from here?

Many, many thanks for your quick response. I understand what you said so far in your response, but unfortunately I am still don't know how to proceed. Let's say I would like using the simplest bases, which are
$$
\begin{bmatrix}
1 &0\\
0 &0
\end{bmatrix}
,
\begin{bmatrix}
0 &1\\
0 &0
\end{bmatrix}
,
\begin{bmatrix}
0 &0\\
1 &0
\end{bmatrix}
,
\begin{bmatrix}
0 &0\\
0 &1
\end{bmatrix}
.$$
I am still confused on getting the matrix associated with the mapping, this is especially true after I was told the matrix will be a $4 \times 4$ one, rightly or wrong. Again many, many thanks to all your patient helps so far.
 
Tarrant said:
Many, many thanks for your quick response. I understand what you said so far in your response, but unfortunately I am still don't know how to proceed. Let's say I would like using the simplest bases, which are
$$
\begin{bmatrix}
1 &0\\
0 &0
\end{bmatrix}
,
\begin{bmatrix}
0 &1\\
0 &0
\end{bmatrix}
,
\begin{bmatrix}
0 &0\\
1 &0
\end{bmatrix}
,
\begin{bmatrix}
0 &0\\
0 &1
\end{bmatrix}
.$$
I am still confused on getting the matrix associated with the mapping, this is especially true after I was told the matrix will be a $4 \times 4$ one, rightly or wrong. Again many, many thanks to all your patient helps so far.

I think I get it now, the matrix associated with the $F$ is
$$\begin{bmatrix}
2 &0 &0 &0\\
1 &1 &0 &0\\
1 &1 &0 &0\\
0 &0 &0 &2
\end{bmatrix},$$

simple because

$$
F(r, s, t, u) =
\begin{bmatrix}
2 &0 &0 &0\\
1 &1 &0 &0\\
1 &1 &0 &0\\
0 &0 &0 &2\\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
r \\
s \\
t \\
u \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
(2r, s+t, s+t, 2u).
$$
Thank you though for all your help and time.
 
Tarrant said:
I think I get it now, the matrix associated with the $F$ is
$$\begin{bmatrix}
2 &0 &0 &0\\
1 &1 &0 &0\\
1 &1 &0 &0\\
0 &0 &0 &2
\end{bmatrix},$$

simple because

$$
F(r, s, t, u) =
\begin{bmatrix}
2 &0 &0 &0\\
1 &1 &0 &0\\
1 &1 &0 &0\\
0 &0 &0 &2\\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
r \\
s \\
t \\
u \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
(2r, s+t, s+t, 2u).
$$
Thank you though for all your help and time.
You miscalculated.
The matrix is
$$\begin{bmatrix}
2 &0 &0 &0\\
0&1 &1 &0\\
0&1 &1 &0\\
0 &0 &0 &2
\end{bmatrix}$$
because
$$
\begin{bmatrix}
2 &0 &0 &0\\
0 &1 &1 &0\\
0 &1 &1 &0\\
0 &0 &0 &2\\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
r \\
s \\
t \\
u \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
(2r, s+t, s+t, 2u)
$$
 
Yes, you are correct. I stand by to be corrected. One final question: I didn't see any link between the bases that I provided earlier with the matrix associated with the mapping. Could you please explain? Thanks again.
 
  • #10
Tarrant said:
Yes, you are correct. I stand by to be corrected. One final question: I didn't see any link between the bases that I provided earlier with the matrix associated with the mapping. Could you please explain? Thanks again.
Let

$$
e_1=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix},
e_2=
\begin{bmatrix}
& 1\\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix},
e_3=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0\\
1 & 0
\end{bmatrix},
e_4=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
$$

What is $F(e_1)$? It is the matrix
$$
\begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
$$
Thus $F(e_1)=2e_1$. Similarly, $F(e_2)=e_2+e_3 = F(e_3)$, and $F(e_4)=2e_4$.

Now do you see how the matrix of $F$ with respect to the basis $\{e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4\}$ is got?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K