Matrix multiplication: index / suffix notation issues

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of using summation notation in matrix multiplication, particularly focusing on index and suffix notation. Participants explore the correct application of these notations in the context of multiplying multiple matrices.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty with summation notation for matrix multiplication and shares an image for clarity.
  • Another participant confirms the correctness of the first summation notation provided but points out an error in the subsequent notation for multiplying matrices.
  • A question is raised about the possibility of swapping sigma symbols without reordering suffixes, to which a participant responds that the order of addition does not affect the result.
  • A participant seeks clarification on the notation for multiplying four matrices and shares another image to illustrate their understanding.
  • Feedback is given regarding the potential confusion in notation, specifically the distinction between indexing elements of a matrix and the operation of matrix multiplication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is some agreement on the correctness of certain summation notations, but participants express differing views on the clarity and correctness of specific notational practices. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best practices for notation in complex matrix multiplications.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on visual aids to convey their points, which may lead to misunderstandings if the images are not clear. There are also unresolved questions about the implications of notation choices on the interpretation of matrix operations.

Dixanadu
Messages
250
Reaction score
2
Hey everyone,

I'm struggling with the summation notation for matrices and vector operations, multiplication in particular. Please refer to the image below where I've typed it all out in Word, its too cumbersome here and I want my meaning to be clear:
https://imageshack.us/scaled/large/580/indicesquestion1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ah man that image turned out tiny...If you guys need it to be bigger please let me know!
 
Your first summation for ##(AB)_{ij}## is ok.

Your notation for the next one isn't right. If you want to multiply (AB) by C, you have
$$(ABC)_{ij} = \sum_l^L (AB){}_{il}C_{lj}$$

Now plug in the summation for ##(AB)_{il}## and you get
$$(ABC)_{ij} = \sum_l^L (\sum_k^K A_{ik}B_{kl})C_{lj}$$

You got to the right formula in the end, but (as you said) not in a very logical way.
 
Okay, thank you, I still have a few more questions but for the time being, can you tell me if I can swap the sigma symbols without reordering the suffixes?
 
It doesn't matter what order you add up the terms. Changing the order is the same as saying a+b+c+d+e+f = a+d+b+e+c+f, or whatever order you like.
 
Alright. Just to make sure that I understand this properly...let's say I want to multiply 4 matrices A B C D together, where the multiplication is possible. Does it go like this:

https://imageshack.us/scaled/large/853/summationquestion.jpg

Hopefully its right T_T and now the image is too big :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's right but I would say make sure you get your brackets right. (AB)C_ij is a very confusing notation, when what you mean is (ABC)_ij. ABC is the matrix, and ij indexes an element in ABC, not just C.

Strictly, (AB)C_ij is the matrix AB times a scalar C_ij.
 
aaah alright. Yea the notation is a bit of an issue but thanks a lot for your help! I got some more questions but I think I'll make a new thread cos its a bit different :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K