Why is the dot product equivalent to matrix multiplication?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalence of the dot product and matrix multiplication of vector components. Participants explore the intuitive understanding of this relationship, focusing on geometric interpretations and definitions, rather than formal proofs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks an intuitive understanding of why the dot product corresponds to matrix multiplication, expressing confusion about its applicability to arbitrary vectors.
  • Another participant questions the definition of the dot product being used, suggesting that understanding the definitions is crucial to discussing their equivalence.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes the geometric interpretation of the dot product as a measure of how much one vector projects onto another, linking it to the concept of directionality.
  • One participant notes that when expressing vectors in component form, a basis must be chosen, highlighting the need to reconcile geometric and algebraic perspectives.
  • Another participant introduces the idea that the dot product is bilinear and can be represented as a tensor, suggesting a connection to matrix representation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion does not reach a consensus, as participants express differing views on the definitions and interpretations of the dot product and its relationship to matrix multiplication.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the importance of definitions and the choice of basis in understanding the relationship between geometric and algebraic representations, indicating potential limitations in their arguments.

rdgn
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Why is the dot product equivalent to the matrix multiplication of its components?

I've seen some proofs using Pythagorean and cosine law but they don't give you an intuitive feel as to why matrix multiplication works.

The geometric definition (##ab cosθ##) is very easy to understand. To a certain extent, I can understand why matrix multiplication works when either vector ##a## or ##b## is parallel to the x or y-axis since the product would ultimately simplify to the geometric definition, but I don't understand why it works for any arbitrary vector.

Can anyone give an intuition of why this works? (not proof/s, since I've already seen some)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the definition of a dot product, that is acceptable for you? This is important since you basically ask, why two definitions are equivalent. So what's yours?
 
Well, based on the intuition of the geometric definition, it's simply how much of a certain vector goes into another vector. (or more formally), how much of a vector is projected into another vector multiplied by the magnitude of that vector. Also, a measure of how much they point in the same direction.

Btw, I found this video by 3b1b (youtube.com/watch?v=LyGKycYT2v0), I think it's great but it might take a while before the idea sinks into my head (and i should familiarize myself more with linear transformations).
 
A major point is, as soon as you write vectors ##v## as ##(v_1,v_2,\ldots)## and perform matrix multiplications you will have to chose some basis first to make sense of the components. Thus you will have to bridge the gap between a purely geometric point of view and the algebraic view in terms of numbers, components first.

An interesting read about the various products can be found on the first pages of this pdf:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5935.pdf
It stresses the geometry behind those products (dot-product, ##\wedge##-product).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: QuantumQuest
You can also argue that the dot product is bilinear and so it is a 2-tensor. Tensors of total (meaning sum of covariant and contravariant indices) order ## \leq 2 ## can be represented as a standard matrix ( order 1) or as a quadratic form (order 2 ).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K