Why is there a Matrix A that satisfies F(x,y)=<Ax,y>?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the relationship between a bilinear functional \( F(x,y) \) and an associated matrix \( A \) such that \( F(x,y) = \langle Ax, y \rangle \). Participants explore the definitions and properties of bilinear forms, particularly in the context of standard basis vectors and matrix representation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on how \( F(e_i, e_j) = a_{ji} \) is derived, indicating a lack of understanding of the proof steps related to bilinear forms.
  • Another participant defines \( F(e_i, e_j) \) as a number and suggests that this number can be denoted as \( a_{ij} \), implying a direct relationship between the bilinear functional and the matrix elements.
  • A participant proposes a method to understand the relationship by examining the inner product \( \mathbf{y}^T \mathbf{A} \mathbf{x} \) and how it relates to the bilinear form through standard basis vectors.
  • There is a suggestion that any bilinear form can be represented by a matrix \( A \) and that the inner product captures the essence of bilinear forms through summation of products of components and matrix entries.
  • Another participant notes that the symmetry of inner products over the reals allows for interchangeability in the notation of the inner product, which may clarify some confusion regarding the expressions used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty about the derivation of certain relationships and the existence of the matrix \( A \) that satisfies the equation \( F(x,y) = \langle Ax, y \rangle \). There is no consensus on the explanation of these concepts, and multiple viewpoints are presented without resolution.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity on the definitions and properties of bilinear forms, particularly regarding the assumptions made about standard basis vectors and the representation of bilinear functionals as matrices. There are unresolved steps in the proof process that contribute to the confusion.

nightingale123
Messages
25
Reaction score
2
I'm having trouble understanding a step in a proof about bilinear forms
Let ## \mathbb{F}:\,\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\to \mathbb{R}## be a bilinear functional.
##x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}##
##x=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=0}\,x_{i}e_{i}##
##y=\sum\limits^{n}_{j=0}\;y_{j}e_{j}##
##F(x,y)=F(\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}\,x_{i}e_{i},\sum\limits^{n}_{j=1}\;y_{j}e_{j})=\sum\limits^{n}_{1=i,j}F(x_{i}e_{i},y_{j}e_{j})=\sum\limits^{n}_{1=i,j}x_{i}y_{j}F(e_{i},e_{j})=\sum\limits^{n}_{1=i,j}x_{i}y_{j}a_{ji}##
##=\sum\limits^{n}_{ji}x_{i}y_{j}a_{ji}##

Could someone explain to me how we got that
##F(e_{i},e_{j})=a_{ji}##
I couldn't find the explanation anywhere in my notebook
thank you
Edit: ( added some stuff I missed )

##A=[a_{ij}]_{i,j=1,...,n}##

##<Ax,y>=<A(\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}x_{i}e_{i}),\sum\limits^{n}_{j=1}y_{j}e_{j}>=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}x_{i}Ae_{i},\sum\limits^{n}_{j=1}\;y_{j}e_{j}>=\sum\limits^{n}_{i,j=1}x_{i}y_{j}<Ae_{i},e_{j}>##

##=\sum\limits^{n}_{ji}x_{i}y_{j}a_{ji}##

I understand why ##\sum\limits^{n}_{ji}x_{i}y_{j}a_{ji}=<Ax,y>##,
however I don't understand why ##<Ax,y>=F(x,y)##
Edit(Edit).
In other words I don't understand why there exists a Matrix A so that ##F(x,y)=<Ax,y>##
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
##F(e_i, e_j)## is a number. Define that number to be ##a_{ij}##.
 
nightingale123 said:
I'm having trouble understanding a step in a proof about bilinear forms
Let ## \mathbb{F}:\,\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\to \mathbb{R}## be a bilinear functional.
##x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}##
##x=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=0}\,x_{i}e_{i}##
##y=\sum\limits^{n}_{j=0}\;y_{j}e_{j}##
##F(x,y)=F(\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}\,x_{i}e_{i},\sum\limits^{n}_{j=1}\;y_{j}e_{j})=\sum\limits^{n}_{1=i,j}F(x_{i}e_{i},y_{j}e_{j})=\sum\limits^{n}_{1=i,j}x_{i}y_{j}F(e_{i},e_{j})=\sum\limits^{n}_{1=i,j}x_{i}y_{j}a_{ji}##
##=\sum\limits^{n}_{ji}x_{i}y_{j}a_{ji}##

Could someone explain to me how we got that
##F(e_{i},e_{j})=a_{ji}##

I assume that ##\mathbf e_k## refers to standard basis vectors, i.e.

##\mathbf I =
\bigg[\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
\mathbf e_1 & \mathbf e_2 &\cdots & \mathbf e_{n}
\end{array}\bigg]##

I would start real simple. Suppose we had the constraint that ##\mathbf x := \mathbf e_k## and ##\mathbf y := \mathbf e_r##.

What happens when you do ##\mathbf e_r^T \mathbf A \mathbf e_k = \mathbf y^T \mathbf A \mathbf x##? This equation "grabs" one cell from ##\mathbf A##, which you should verify by inspection.

nightingale123 said:
In other words I don't understand why there exists a Matrix A so that ##F(x,y)=<Ax,y>##

From here recall that the standard basis vectors in fact form a basis, so let's loosen up our restriction and let ##\mathbf x## be anything (while keeping its dimension and field the same, of course.)

##\mathbf x = \gamma_1 \mathbf e_1 + \gamma_2 \mathbf e_2 + ... + \gamma_n \mathbf e_n##

##\mathbf y^T \mathbf A \mathbf x = \mathbf y^T \mathbf A\big(\gamma_1 \mathbf e_1 + \gamma_2 \mathbf e_2 + ... + \gamma_n \mathbf e_n\big)##

now loosen up the constraint on ##\mathbf y## so it too can be anything

##\mathbf y = \eta_1 \mathbf e_1 + \eta_2 \mathbf e_2 + ... + \eta_n \mathbf e_n##

##\mathbf y^T \mathbf A \mathbf x = \big(\eta_1 \mathbf e_1 + \eta_2 \mathbf e_2 + ... + \eta_n \mathbf e_n \big)^T \mathbf A\big(\gamma_1 \mathbf e_1 + \gamma_2 \mathbf e_2 + ... + \gamma_n \mathbf e_n\big) = \sum \sum \eta_j \gamma_i a_{j,i} = \sum \sum \eta_j \gamma_i F(e_{i},e_{j}) = \sum \sum y_j x_i F(e_{i},e_{j}) ##

If you work through that, any bi-linear form your want (over reals with finite dimension) is just "grabbing" and scaling stuff from ##\mathbf A## and then summing them up so you get a scalar result.
 
nightingale123 said:
I'm having trouble understanding a step in a proof about bilinear forms
Let ## \mathbb{F}:\,\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\to \mathbb{R}## be a bilinear functional.
##x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}##
##x=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=0}\,x_{i}e_{i}##
##y=\sum\limits^{n}_{j=0}\;y_{j}e_{j}##
##F(x,y)=F(\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}\,x_{i}e_{i},\sum\limits^{n}_{j=1}\;y_{j}e_{j})=\sum\limits^{n}_{1=i,j}F(x_{i}e_{i},y_{j}e_{j})=\sum\limits^{n}_{1=i,j}x_{i}y_{j}F(e_{i},e_{j})=\sum\limits^{n}_{1=i,j}x_{i}y_{j}a_{ji}##
##=\sum\limits^{n}_{ji}x_{i}y_{j}a_{ji}##

Could someone explain to me how we got that
##F(e_{i},e_{j})=a_{ji}##
I couldn't find the explanation anywhere in my notebook
thank you
Edit: ( added some stuff I missed )

##A=[a_{ij}]_{i,j=1,...,n}##

##<Ax,y>=<A(\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}x_{i}e_{i}),\sum\limits^{n}_{j=1}y_{j}e_{j}>=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}x_{i}Ae_{i},\sum\limits^{n}_{j=1}\;y_{j}e_{j}>=\sum\limits^{n}_{i,j=1}x_{i}y_{j}<Ae_{i},e_{j}>##

##=\sum\limits^{n}_{ji}x_{i}y_{j}a_{ji}##

I understand why ##\sum\limits^{n}_{ji}x_{i}y_{j}a_{ji}=<Ax,y>##,
however I don't understand why ##<Ax,y>=F(x,y)##
Edit(Edit).
In other words I don't understand why there exists a Matrix A so that ##F(x,y)=<Ax,y>##

If A is linear, then <Ax,y> is bilinear and so it has a representation as a matrix, as a quadratic form. Is that your question?
 
follow-up thought:

my posting had ##\mathbf y^T \mathbf {Ax} = \mathbf y^T\big( \mathbf {Ax}\big) = <\mathbf y, \mathbf{Ax}>##

though OP actually asked for

##< \mathbf{Ax}, \mathbf y>##

inner products over Reals are symmetric, so

##< \mathbf{Ax}, \mathbf y> = <\mathbf y, \mathbf{Ax}>##

(over complex numbers inner products are symmetric, plus complex conjugation at the end)

note that Chapter 7 of Linear Algebra Done Wrong has a very good discussion of bilinear and quadratic forms. Freely available by the author here:

https://www.math.brown.edu/~treil/papers/LADW/book.pdf
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K