The Length of a Matrix- Double Sum

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Astrum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Length Matrix Sum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the double sum used to calculate the length of a matrix, specifically focusing on the mathematical expression for the length of an nxm matrix as the square root of the sum of the squares of its entries. Participants explore how to visualize and compute this double sum, addressing both theoretical and practical aspects.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the double sum notation and seeks clarification on its computation and visualization.
  • Another participant suggests a step-by-step approach to compute the double sum, emphasizing the importance of fixing one index while summing over the other.
  • A different participant clarifies that the double sum represents the sum of squares of all entries in the matrix, indicating that it is not merely a sum of two separate sums.
  • One participant attempts to apply a concrete example with a specific matrix to illustrate the computation but struggles with the notation and the role of the indices.
  • Another participant explains that both indices label the matrix terms and provides a detailed breakdown of the computation using the example matrix, ultimately concluding that the sum is the same regardless of the order of summation.
  • There is a contention regarding the terminology, with one participant suggesting that the term "norm" is more appropriate than "length" for this calculation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the double sum and its computation. While some clarify aspects of the calculation, there remains confusion, particularly with the notation and the interpretation of the result. Additionally, there is disagreement on the terminology used to describe the result of the computation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the potential for confusion arising from the notation and the roles of the indices in the double sum. There is also an unresolved discussion about the appropriateness of the term "length" versus "norm" in describing the result.

Astrum
Messages
269
Reaction score
5
I'm really confused about the double sum given by my textbook. Here's what it says:

If A is an nxm matrix, its length is the square root of the sum of its squares of all its entries.

[tex]\left|A\right|^{2}=\sum^{n}_{i=1}\sum^{m}_{j=1}a_{i,j}^{2}[/tex]

The double sum is what has me caught up. How do you visualize this, and how do you compute it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Start working from left to right.

1. For the first sigma, set i = 1.
2. Go to the second sigma. Here, let j run from 1 to m.
3. The partial sums will be: a(1,1)^2 + a(1,2)^2 + ... + a(1,m-1)^2 + a(1,m)^2 Notice, i stays constant
4. Set i = 2
5. Go to Step 2. Repeat Step 3, adding the partial sum for i = 2 to the partial sum for i = 1
6. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 until i = n, adding the partial sums together.

Hope this helps.
 
Note that, with i= column number, j= row number [itex]\sum_i(\sum_j a^2_{ij})[/itex] means that for i= 1 you sum over all numbers in the first column, for i= 2, you sum over all numbers in the second column, etc.

That is, the double sum is the just the sum of squares of all the numbers in the matrix.
 
I'm still confused.

Let's try a concrete example. [tex]A = [\begin{matrix} 1 & 2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix}][/tex]

How would you wright this out? like this:

[tex]\sum^{2}_{i=1}\sum^{2}_{i=1}a^{2}_{i,j} = (\sum^{2}_{j=1}a^{2}_{j})+(\sum^{2}_{j=1}a^{2}_{j})[/tex]

But where does it go from here? What happened to the i?
 
It is not the sum of two sums, it is the sum of a sum. That is:
[tex]\sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^m a_{i,j}^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left(\sum_{j=1}^m a_{i,j}^2\right)[/tex]
Write the sum over j out inside the parentheses first, then sum the result over i.
In the case you raised,
[tex]\sum_{i=1}^2 \left(\sum_{j=1}^2 a_{i,j}^2\right) = \sum_{i=1}^2 (a_{i,1}^2 + a_{i, 2}^2)[/tex]
 
Astrum said:
I'm still confused.

Let's try a concrete example. [tex]A = [\begin{matrix} 1 & 2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix}][/tex]

How would you wright this out? like this:

[tex]\sum^{2}_{i=1}\sum^{2}_{i=1}a^{2}_{i,j} = (\sum^{2}_{j=1}a^{2}_{j})+(\sum^{2}_{j=1}a^{2}_{j})[/tex]

But where does it go from here? What happened to the i?
Both indices, i and j, label the terms of the matrix. When you broke this into two sums, your first sum corresponds to i= 1 and the second to i= 2.
With this particular A, that would be [tex](1^2+ 2^2)+ (0^2+ 1^2)= 5+ 1= 6[/tex].
Swapping i and j, that is swapping row and columns, we would get [tex](1^2+ 0^2)+ (2^2+ 1^2)= 1+ 5= 6[/tex].

Either way, the sum is just the sum of squares or all members orf the matrix: [tex]1^2+ 2^2+ 0^2+ 1^2= 1+ 4+ 0+ 1= 6[/tex]

However, I would not call this the "length" of a matrix, I would call it the "norm".
 

Similar threads

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