How does a matrix times a vector yield a vector?

Click For Summary
Matrix-vector multiplication is defined such that a vector with the same number of elements as the columns of a matrix results in a vector, not a matrix. This process can be understood through the concept of linear operators and dot products, where the matrix acts on the vector to produce a new vector. The multiplication is essentially a function that simplifies the evaluation of these dot products. The resulting vector has dimensions corresponding to the number of rows in the matrix, confirming that the output is indeed a vector. Understanding this definition clarifies why the output cannot be a matrix.
vanmaiden
Messages
101
Reaction score
1
The title pretty much sums up my quandary. I'm confused as to how a vector "x" with the same number of elements as columns in matrix "A" could yield a vector "b" when multiplied together. I mean, what's stopping "b" from being a matrix instead?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is just how matrix-vector mulitplication is defined.

If you're familiar with dot products and such, perhaps this explanation will give you a better understanding of what's going on. Consider the matrix,

A = \begin{pmatrix} 3 & 4 & 2 \\ -1 & 7 & 6 \\ 9 & -5 & -8\end{pmatrix}

This describes a linear operator which can be expressed in terms of dot products and basis vectors. Namely, for any vector a,

\underline A(a) = [(3e_1 + 4 e_2 + 2 e_3) \cdot a]e_1 + [(-e_1 + 7 e_2 + 6 e_3) \cdot a]e_2 + [(9e_1 - 5 e_2 - 8 e_3) \cdot a]e_3

Matrix-vector multiplication has been defined in such a way to make this series of dot products easy to quickly evaluate and to make the components of all these various vectors easy to write down in a small space. Nevertheless, this is an entirely equivalent description of what's happening. It's not really "multiplication" at all. It's a linear operator--it's more like a function.
 
vanmaiden said:
The title pretty much sums up my quandary. I'm confused as to how a vector "x" with the same number of elements as columns in matrix "A" could yield a vector "b" when multiplied together. I mean, what's stopping "b" from being a matrix instead?
Do you know how matrix multiplication is defined? If so, you should know that multiplying a matrix with "n" rows and "m" columns time a matrix with "m" rows and "s" columns (and if the number of columns in the first matrix is not equal to the number of rows in the second matrix then you can't multiply them) then the product matrix has "n" rows and "s" columns. In particular, if the second "matrix" is actually a vector, written as an "m" by "1" matrix, then the product matrix is an "n" by "1" matrix, a vector.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K