Linear Transformations and Bases

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of linear transformations and their matrix representations, focusing on the assumptions regarding bases in vector spaces. Participants explore the conditions under which linear transformations can be defined and represented as matrices, as well as the implications of specifying bases.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that a linear transformation is specified by its action on variables without reference to any basis, while the matrix representation of a linear transformation requires specified bases in both the domain and codomain.
  • Another participant questions the definition of the "standard basis" in a generic vector space, indicating a need for clarification on this point.
  • A participant agrees with the initial assumptions but emphasizes that specifying a linear transformation as a matrix multiplication necessitates defining a basis, particularly in Euclidean space.
  • It is noted that linear transformations can exist without being represented as matrix multiplications, using the example of an integral operator on polynomials, which does not require a specified basis to define the transformation.
  • One participant expresses a need for clarification on the requirement of the vector spaces being over a field, specifically mentioning the fields of real or complex numbers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for bases when discussing matrix representations of linear transformations, but there is some uncertainty regarding the definition of standard bases and the conditions under which linear transformations can be described without them. The discussion remains unresolved on these points.

Contextual Notes

There is an implicit assumption that the standard basis is commonly understood in the context of Euclidean spaces, but this may not apply universally to all vector spaces. Additionally, the discussion touches on the distinction between linear transformations that can be expressed as matrix multiplications and those that cannot, without resolving the implications of these distinctions.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I need some help or at least some assurance that my thinking on linear transformations and their matrix representations is correct.

I assume when we specify a linear transformation eg F(x,y, z) = (3x +y, y+z, 2x-3z) for example, that this is specified by its action on the variables and is not with respect to any basis.

However when we specify the matrix of a linear transformation T: V --> W that this is with respect to a basis in V and a basis in W

Of course if we have a linear transformation S: V -->V it could be that the two bases are the same.

If no basis is mentioned regarding the matrix of a linear transformation, then I am assuming the standard bases are assumed.

Can someone either confirm I am correct in my thinking or point out the errors in my thinking?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If no basis is mentioned regarding the matrix of a linear transformation, then I am assuming the standard bases are assumed.

What is the standard basis of a generic vector space V?
 
Yes, good point ... I guess I should have specified Euclidean space for that assumption to make sense ...

Are my other assumptions/interpretations OK?
 
Everything is correct, but I think you have a bit of a hangup on how linear transformations on vector spaces are described

I assume when we specify a linear transformation eg F(x,y, z) = (3x +y, y+z, 2x-3z) for example, that this is specified by its action on the variables and is not with respect to any basis.

However when we specify the matrix of a linear transformation T: V --> W that this is with respect to a basis in V and a basis in W

The key here is that in your first example you specified a linear transformation on R3 without defining it as a matrix multiplication, so no basis is required and no matrix is ever constructed. If you wanted to define F as a matrix multiplication you would need to specify a basis of R3 - on Euclidean space this step is often omitted because everyone assumes your basis is the standard basis (1,0,0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1) (and trying to specify F as matrix multiplication with respect to a different basis is literally just extra work).

If we want to specify a linear transformation V--> W as a matrix multiplication we need to pick bases of V and W to identify them with Euclidean space. But we can have linear transformations that are not represented as matrix multiplications. For example let V be the set of all polynomials of degree <= 3 (this is a 4 dimensional vector space over R) and let W be R. Then consider
[tex]I:V\to \mathbb{R},\ I(p(x)) = \int_0^1 p(x) dx[/tex]
I is a linear transformation and I never specified a basis for V in order to tell you the function because I didn't tell you what I was as a matrix multiplication
 
Thanks so much for that post - most helpful

I suppose the essential thing needed to be able to derive a matrix of a linear transformation is that the vector spaces involved need to be over a field F where F = R or C.

Is that correct?

Missed your example due to some latex error or other - pity - would have like to have viewed your example

Thanks again!

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K