Linear Transformation notation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the notation of linear transformations, specifically the mapping from R^n to R^m. Participants explore the implications of this notation, particularly when n and m take on different values, and how these transformations relate to vectors in different dimensional spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the notation T:R^n \implies R^m, particularly regarding the value of m when n=2.
  • Another participant suggests that linear transformations can map from R^n to a subspace of R^m, where m can be smaller, equal, or greater than n, providing examples for each case.
  • A different participant reiterates the confusion about the transformation, emphasizing that T is a map between spaces of different dimensions rather than a transformation of a single number.
  • One participant seeks clarification on the meaning of transforming vectors from the plane to space, indicating uncertainty about the concept of dimensionality in this context.
  • Another participant clarifies that two-dimensional vectors are examples of vectors in the plane, contrasting them with three-dimensional vectors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit some agreement on the nature of linear transformations as mappings between different dimensional spaces. However, there remains uncertainty and confusion regarding the implications of these transformations, particularly among those less familiar with the concepts.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about their understanding of the dimensionality involved in linear transformations, indicating a need for further clarification on the topic.

The Subject
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
I'm confused about the notation
[tex] T:R^n \implies R^m[/tex]
specifically about m. From my understanding if n=2 then (x1, x2). Are we transforming n=2 to another value m for example (x1, x2, x3)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is very possible. It is easy to define linear transformations that go from Rn into a subspace of Rm, where m can be smaller, equal, or greater than n:

m smaller than n: (x1, x2) => x1
m equals n: (x1, x2) => (-x1, x1+x2)
m greater than n: (x1, x2) => (x1, x2, x1+x2); another is (x1, x2) => (x1, 0, 0)
 
The Subject said:
I'm confused about the notation
[tex] T:R^n \implies R^m[/tex]
specifically about m. From my understanding if n=2 then (x1, x2). Are we transforming n=2 to another value m for example (x1, x2, x3)?
That's not the way to think about it. T isn't transforming a single number, like n. It's a map between a space of n dimensions to another space of m dimensions. If n = 2 and m = 3, T is a map from vectors in the plane to vectors in space (three dimensions).

Ordinary functions, which you're probably more familiar with, are maps from ##\mathbb{R}^1## to ##\mathbb{R}^1##. (I added the 1 exponents only for emphasis.) A function of two variables is a map from ##\mathbb{R}^2## to ##\mathbb{R}^1##.
 
Okay makes sense. We're transforming vectors.
Mark44 said:
T is a map from vectors in the plane to vectors in space (three dimensions).
I don't feel confident with my understanding of this statement. What does it mean from vectors in the plane
 
The Subject said:
Okay makes sense. We're transforming vectors.

I don't feel confident with my understanding of this statement. What does it mean from vectors in the plane
Two-dimensional vectors, like <2, -1>. A vector in space would be, for example, <3, 1, 2>.
 

Similar threads

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