Matrix Multiplication and Function Composition

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between matrix multiplication and function composition in the context of linear algebra. Participants explore how matrices represent linear transformations and the implications for operations involving these matrices, particularly focusing on the mathematical expressions and definitions involved.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire to understand matrix multiplication as a composition of functions and seeks clarification on a specific article's content regarding linear transformations and basis vectors.
  • Another participant suggests that the interpretation of functions f and g is crucial to understanding the transformations being discussed.
  • A participant provides a mathematical example to illustrate how a linear transformation can be expressed in matrix form, specifically showing how g(w1) is computed.
  • There is a request for proof regarding the definition of g(x) as Bx, highlighting a potential misunderstanding about the representation of vectors.
  • A further explanation is offered on how g can be defined in both matrix notation and ordered pair notation, emphasizing the challenges of each approach.
  • Participants are encouraged to explore the relationship between matrix multiplication and composition of linear functions through specific exercises and definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple viewpoints regarding the definitions and interpretations of functions and transformations. Participants do not reach a consensus on the proof of g(x) = Bx, and there remains uncertainty about the implications of the mathematical definitions presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that understanding the relationship between matrix multiplication and linear transformations requires careful consideration of definitions and representations, which may not be straightforward. There are also references to specific mathematical steps and conventions that may not be universally agreed upon.

Septimra
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
I am doing linear algebra and want to fully understand it, not just pass the class. I was recently taught matrix multiplication and decided to look up how it works. The good part is that I understand the concept. Matrices are a way of representing linear transformations. So matrix multiplication is actually a composition of functions. That is why it is not communicative and it is associative.

But i recently came across this article and I could not follow the math near the middle of the page.
http://nolaymanleftbehind.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/linear-algebra-what-matrices-actually-are/

the matrices that are being multiplied are

[ 2 1 ] [ 1 2 ]
[ 4 3 ] [ 1 0 ]

the basis are w1 and w 2

and w1 = [ 1 0 ]
and w2 = [ 0 1 ]

The author states that all that is needed it to see how the linear transformation affects the basis vectors.

Then it states that f(g(w1)) = f(w1+w2)
How does that work? Where on Earth do you plug in the w1?
Please help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That would depend on what the author sees as f and g ... but the basic principle is that a linear transformation can be represented as a transformation of the coordinate system. A square in an oblique coordinate system looks the same as an oblique shape in a rectangular coordinate system.
 
Septimra said:
But i recently came across this article and I could not follow the math near the middle of the page.
http://nolaymanleftbehind.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/linear-algebra-what-matrices-actually-are/

the matrices that are being multiplied are

[ 2 1 ] [ 1 2 ]
[ 4 3 ] [ 1 0 ]

the basis are w1 and w 2

and w1 = [ 1 0 ]
and w2 = [ 0 1 ]

The author states that all that is needed it to see how the linear transformation affects the basis vectors.

Then it states that f(g(w1)) = f(w1+w2)
How does that work? Where on Earth do you plug in the w1?
Please help
If we write elements of ##\mathbb R^2## as 2×1 matrices, the definition of ##g:\mathbb R^2\to\mathbb R^2## can be written as ##g(x)=Bx## for all ##x\in\mathbb R^2##. So
$$g(w_1)=Bw_1 =\begin{pmatrix}1 & 2\\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 0\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1\\ 1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1\\ 0\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}0\\ 1\end{pmatrix}=w_1+w_2.$$
You may find https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4402648#post4402648 useful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you a lot, I appreciate it. I now see what the author was saying.
But I still have one minor question. I thought the author was trying to prove that g(x) = Bx. I now see that I was mistaken. But could one of you prove this? How does g(x) = Bx if x is a vector?
 
Septimra said:
How does g(x) = Bx if x is a vector?
x is an element of ##\mathbb R^2##. If we use the convention to write elements of ##\mathbb R^2## as 2×1 matrices, then we can just define ##g(x)=Bx## for all ##x\in\mathbb R^2##. If we instead use the convention to write elements of ##\mathbb R^2## in the standard ##(x_1,x_2)## notation for ordered pairs, the notation ##Bx## doesn't work, but we could e.g. define
$$g(x)=\left(\left(B\begin{pmatrix}x_1\\ x_2\end{pmatrix}\right)_1,\left(B\begin{pmatrix}x_1\\ x_2\end{pmatrix}\right)_2\right)$$ for all ##x\in\mathbb R^2##. This looks really awkward of course. This is why I chose to use the matrix notation instead of the ordered pair notation.

We could also define g by saying that it's the function defined by ##g(s,t)=(s+2t,s)## for all ##s,t\in\mathbb R##. The matrix of this function with respect to the standard ordered basis ##(e_1,e_2)## where ##e_1=(1,0)## and ##e_2=(0,1)##, has ##g(e_j)_i## on row i, column j, as explained in the FAQ post. This is the ith component of the vector we get when g takes e_j as input. For example, row 2, column 1, of this matrix is
$$g(e_1)_2=(g(1,0))_2=(1+2\cdot 0,1)_2=1.$$ Note that this is equal to ##B_{21}##, as it's supposed to be.

If you want to understand how matrix multiplication is really composition of linear functions, then you should study the FAQ post and do this exercise: Let A and B be linear functions from ##\mathbb R^n## to ##\mathbb R^n##. Let [A] and denote their matrix representations with respect to the standard basis for ##\mathbb R^n##. Let [AB] denote the matrix representation of AB with respect to the standard basis for ##\mathbb R^n##. Prove that for all ##i,j\in\{1,\dots,n\}##, we have
$$[A\circ B]_{ij}=[AB]_{ij}.$$ This result tells us that the matrix representation of ##A\circ B## is equal to the matrix product of the matrix representations of A and B.

Hint: The definition of matrix multiplication is ##(XY)_{ij}=\sum_k X_{ik}Y_{kj}##. You will also have to use the fact that every vector is a linear combination of basis vectors.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K