Matrix Representation of Linear Transformation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the matrix representation of linear transformations, specifically how to express a linear transformation \( T \) in terms of its action on basis vectors and how this relates to the columns of the transformation matrix. Participants explore the definitions and implications of these concepts, including the relationship between vector spaces, bases, and the transformation matrix.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the definition of the matrix \( A \) as it relates to the images of basis vectors under the transformation \( T \) and requests clarification on how this works.
  • Another participant reiterates the confusion and attempts to define \( A \) as the arrangement of images of basis vectors of \( V \) in columns, suggesting that this fully determines the transformation \( T \).
  • A third participant explains that any vector \( v \) in \( V \) can be expressed as a linear combination of basis vectors, and that knowing the images \( T(b_i) \) for the basis vectors is sufficient to characterize the transformation \( T \).
  • This participant further clarifies that the columns of the matrix \( A \) correspond to the transformed basis vectors expressed in the coordinates of another basis \( \mathcal{C} \).
  • Another participant advises using concrete numerical examples to better understand the symbolic calculations involved in the matrix representation of linear transformations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of understanding the relationship between the transformation matrix and the action of \( T \) on basis vectors. However, there is no consensus on the clarity of the definitions or the process, as some participants express confusion and seek further explanation.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the potential for misunderstanding the definitions of bases and transformations, as well as the abstract nature of the symbols used in the discussion. The discussion does not resolve these uncertainties.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students studying linear algebra, particularly those grappling with the concepts of linear transformations, matrix representations, and the relationship between bases and vector spaces.

KT KIM
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
la_1.png


This is where I am stuck. I studied ordered basis and coordinates vector previous to this.
of course I studied vector space, basis, linear... etc too,
However I can't understand just this part. (maybe this whole part)
Especially
la_2.png

this one which says [[T(b1)]]c...[[T(bn)]]c be a columns of matrix.

Can anyone please explain me how this works? I've stuck at here too long.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KT KIM said:
la_1.png


This is where I am stuck. I studied ordered basis and coordinates vector previous to this.
of course I studied vector space, basis, linear... etc too,
However I can't understand just this part. (maybe this whole part)
Especially
la_2.png

this one which says [[T(b1)]]c...[[T(bn)]]c be a columns of matrix.

Can anyone please explain me how this works? I've stuck at here too long.

This is how ##A## is defined: ("Define ##A## to be ...") the images of basis vectors of ##V## under the transformation ##T## expressed in coordinates of ##C## with respect to the given bases in ##C## as column vectors of ##A##.

The author then shows that the so defined ##A## describes / is in accordance to / concurs / fully determines (whatever) the entire transformation ##T##, as it maps any vector ##v## when expressed in the coordinates of ##V## with respect to the basis ##\mathit{B}## (RHS) onto the image ##T(v)## expressed in the coordinates of ##W## with respect to the basis ##\mathit{C}## (LHS).

EDIT: For short: The matrix ##A## of ##T## can be written as all images of basis vectors of ##V## arranged in columns.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: KT KIM
Any vector ##v\in V## can be uniquely written as a linear combination of ##\{b_1,\ldots,b_n\}##, i.e. ##v = \sum_{i=1}^n \beta_i b_i##. Operating ##T## on ##v##,
$$
Tv = \sum_{i=1}^n \beta_i (Tb_i)
$$
The thing inside the bracket in right side above implies that the action of ##T## on any vector in ##V## is going to be completely characterized if you know ##Tb_i## for ##i=1,\ldots,n##.

Now suppose ##A## be the matrix representation of ##T##. In ##k^n##, ##b_1 = (1,0,...,0)^T##, ##b_2 = (0,1,...,0)^T##, and so on. If you multiply ##A## with ##b_1= (1,0,...,0)^T##, you will get a vector in ##k^m## which equals the first column of ##A##, right? Thus the first column in ##A## equals ##T## applied to ##b_1## and written in ##\mathcal{C}## basis, which is ##[[T(b_1)]]_\mathcal{C}##. The similar argument goes for the other columns of ##A##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: KT KIM
I strongly suggest you stop here and consider some simple examples with actual numbers. Nothing makes a type of symbolic calculation clearer the first time you encounter it than working through concrete examples.

Use a 2-dimensional vector space over the real numbers. Make up simple numbers that take the place of the abstract symbols in the textbook or notes you quoted for us.

Do the explicit calculation separately for each of the two things that the quote claims are equal. This will very much get you used to this kind of calculation and help you see what is going on.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: KT KIM and jasonRF

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K