Linear Algebra: Understanding Matrix as a Linear Transformation

EnglsihLearner
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
The matrix is an example of a Linear Transformation, because it takes one vector and turns it into another in a "linear" way.

Hi could you explain it what exactly the bold part suggest?

What is "another in a "linear" way"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually any linear map between two finite dimensional vector spaces (over the same field) can be represented as a matrix so matrices aren't exactly "special" in that sense. A linear map ##L: V \rightarrow W## sends vectors in ##V## to vectors in ##W## such that ##L## preserves addition and scalar multiplication from one vector space to the other.
 
A linear transformation is a map ##f:U\to V## such that U and V are vector spaces over the same field F (typically, ##F=\mathbb R## or ##F=\mathbb C##), and
$$f(ax+by)=af(x)+bf(y)$$ for all ##x,y\in X## and all ##a,b\in F##. If A is an n×n matrix, then the map ##x\mapsto Ax## is linear, because
$$A(ax+by)=aAx+bAy$$ for all n×1 matrices x,y and all real (or complex) numbers a,b.

Note that we can define a function f by defining f(x)=Ax for all n×1 matrices x. Since both the domain and codomain of f is a set whose elements are n×1 matrices to n×1 matrices, it can be said to "take a vector and turn it into another vector". When they say that it does so "in a linear way", they mean that the function is linear in the sense defined above.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top