Motivating Matrix Addition/Multiplication Without Appealing to Linear Maps

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bacle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linear Matrices
Click For Summary
Matrix addition and multiplication can be motivated by their relationship to systems of linear equations rather than linear maps. For addition, if Ax = p and Bx = q, then (A+B)x = (p + q) illustrates how matrices can represent combined equations. This approach helps students see addition as a simplification process within a system of equations. For multiplication, the connection is made through the composition of solutions, where BAx = z demonstrates how one equation can be derived from another. Overall, framing matrices as abstract representations of systems of equations provides a solid foundation for understanding their operations.
Bacle
Messages
656
Reaction score
1
Hi, Everyone:

In linear algebra courses, the defs/formulas for
the sum, multiplication of matrices respectively,
are often motivated by the fact that matrix addition
models the point-wise addition of linear maps, i.e.,
If A,B are linear maps described on the same basis, then
the sum (a_ij)+(b_ij) describes the linear operator:

(A+B)(x)=A(x)+B(x)

And AB models the composition of the operators A,B;
i.e., A*B(x) =A( B(x)).

Now, I am teaching a class in which matrices have,
so far, been used only to represent systems of linear
equations. Does anyone know how to motivate the
definitions A+B and AB from this or a related
perspective?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


You could use the same basic ideas expressed as equations.

If Ax = p and Bx = q, then (A+B)x = (p + q)
If Ax = y and By = z, then BAx = z

The addition example seems a bit artificial, but most students will probably "buy" matrix addition by analogy with scalar addition.

The multiplication example is (fortunately) more realistic. You can invent "word problems" where two sets of equations can be combined and solved this way.
 


The addition is not that artificial - you rewrite some of the equations in the linear system - then add/subtract from your original system to get a simplification.
 


I'll write the number 2 as 02, and 3 as 03 etc.. just to make things look pretty on this page.

I think you could begin by explaining how the matrix on the left comes from considering that
system of equations on the right. You could motivate the definition by explaining how a
matrix is an abstract representation of that system of equations first.

|01 02 03 04| - 01x + 02y + 03z + 04w
|05 06 07 08| - 05x + 06y + 07z + 08w
|09 10 11 12| - 09x + 10y + 11z + 12w
|13 14 15 16| - 13x + 14y + 15z + 16w

You get the idea, the - on every line is typographical...Then explain that an equation like 01x + 02y + 03z + 04w could be perceived as coming
from adding two different equations as follows:

_00x + 01y + 01z + 02w
+01x + 01y + 02z + 02w
------------------------
(00 + 01)x + (01 + 01)y + (01 + 02)z + (02 + 02)w

so

(00 + 01)x + (01 + 01)y + (01 + 02)z + (02 + 02)w = 01x + 02y + 03z + 04w.

We can rewrite the whole system in this way:

|(00 + 01) (01 + 01) (01 + 02) (02 + 02)| - (00 + 01)x + (01 + 01)y + (01 + 02)z + (02 + 02)w
|(03 + 02) (03 + 02) (03 + 04) (04 + 04)| - (03 + 02)x + (03 + 03)y + (03 + 04)z + (04 + 04)w

I won't do all four as you get the idea.

So we have

|01 02 03 04| = |(00 + 01) (01 + 01) (01 + 02) (02 + 02)| = |00 01 01 02| + |01 01 02 02|
|05 06 07 08| = |(03 + 02) (03 + 02) (03 + 04) (04 + 04)| = |03 03 03 04| + |02 03 04 04|

and you can see that the definition of matrix addition follows. Obviously the last equality
should be approached starting from the perspective of two systems of equations where
you just show they have the same solution and show that there's no reason not to define
things this way because everything has the same solution set...

As for matrix multiplication that's a big question, you might enjoy reading my thread here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=451822
as I tried to figure this question out and eventually got a few separate and equally
satisfying answers. From post 6 on is where I wrote the ideas, the early posts are just
me being confused.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
10K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
777