Transforming Vectors from Basis B to C: A Confusing Matter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation of vectors between different bases in linear algebra, specifically addressing how to correctly apply a change of basis from basis B to basis C using a transformation matrix S. Participants explore the implications of this transformation on eigenvectors and linear operators.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that if S is the transformation matrix from basis B to C, then the representation of a linear transformation t in basis C is given by STS^{-1}.
  • Another participant agrees with the representation but questions whether the transformation of eigenvectors should be v^C_i = S^{-1}v^B_i instead of v^C_i = Sv^B_i, expressing confusion over the direction of the transformation.
  • A third participant provides a mathematical formulation involving the bases B and C, suggesting that the relationship between the representations in the two bases can be expressed as [x]_C = S[x]_B, and defines S as the inverse of the representation of T in basis B.
  • Another participant makes a light-hearted comment about the importance of the base, which may indicate a shift in tone or a desire to lighten the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct transformation of vectors between bases, with some agreeing on the use of the transformation matrix S while others challenge this approach. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct application of the transformation to eigenvectors.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of the transformation matrix S and its application to the vectors in different bases, as well as the implications of using the inverse of the transformation matrix.

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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K