Transforming Vectors from Basis B to C: A Confusing Matter

devd
Messages
47
Reaction score
1
Suppose a change of basis from basis ##B## to basis ##C## is represented by the matrix ##S##.
That is, ##S## is the transformation matrix from ##B## to ##C##.

Now if ##t## is a given linear transformation, ##t:~V\rightarrow V##, with eigenvectors ##\epsilon_i##, say, and ##T## is the representation of ##t## in ##B##, then, the representation of t in ##C## is ##STS^{-1}##.

Now, if the representation of ##\epsilon_i## in basis ##B## be ##v^B_i##, then the representation of ##\epsilon_i## in basis ##C##, ##v^C_i=Sv^B_i##.

But shouldn't the vectors themselves transform in an opposite sense to the transformation of the basis, that is, shouldn't it be that ##v^C_i=S^{-1}v^B_i## ? I'm getting really confused. Please, can someone clarify?
 
devd said:
Suppose a change of basis from basis ##B## to basis ##C## is represented by the matrix ##S##.
That is, ##S## is the transformation matrix from ##B## to ##C##.

Now if ##t## is a given linear transformation, ##t:~V\rightarrow V##, with eigenvectors ##\epsilon_i##, say, and ##T## is the representation of ##t## in ##B##, then, the representation of t in ##C## is ##STS^{-1}##.

Now, if the representation of ##\epsilon_i## in basis ##B## be ##v^B_i##, then the representation of ##\epsilon_i## in basis ##C##, ##v^C_i=Sv^B_i##.
I agree with what you have here.
But shouldn't the vectors themselves transform in an opposite sense to the transformation of the basis, that is, shouldn't it be that ##v^C_i=S^{-1}v^B_i## ? I'm getting really confused. Please, can someone clarify?
Remember that S:B-->C. So what would it mean to take the inverse on something in B? As in:
##v^C_i=S^{-1}v^B_i##.
 
Let's write ##B=(e_1,\dots,e_n)##, ##C=(f_1,\dots,f_n)##. Let ##T## be the linear operator such that ##Te_i=f_i## for all ##i##. I won't be writing any summation sigmas. There's always a sum over the index or indices that appear exactly twice. We have
\begin{align}
([x]_B)_j e_j =x=([x]_C)_i f_i =([x]_C)_i Te_i = ([x]_C)_i (Te_i)_j e_j =([x]_C)_i ([T]_B)_{ji} e_j=([T]_B[x]_C)_j e_j.
\end{align} This implies that ##[x]_B=[T]_B[x]_C##. If we define ##S=([T]_B)^{-1}##, we can write this as ##[x]_C=S[x]_B##, or equivalently as
$$([x]_C)_i =S_{ij} ([x]_B)_j.$$ We also have
$$f_i=Te_i =(Te_i)_j e_j =([T]_B)_{ji} e_j =(S^{-1})_{ji} e_j.$$
 
You know it's all about the base, about the base.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K