Linear transformations as matrices
September 29, 2011 Leave a comment
where each . In an effort to to be lazy, I could skip out on writing the and just record the (of course, this is entirely dependent on my choice of basis. I am going to write them in a vertical column like so:
We put the in the subscript to remind us over what basis we are working. A few basic examples,
, , all the way to
But last time we noticed that if we know what a linear transformation does to a basis, we know what it does to the entire space. So if is a linear transformation, I can write down , , … in this “column notation.”
Let’s say is a basis for . Notice that the dimensions of and need not be the same. Since , we can write . In the column notation, we have:
But we have one of these for each . There’s no sense in writing so many parentheses and subscripted s. Let’s just concatenate them. Then we can juts express as the concatenated list of . We’ll write it like
where the subscripts tell us that we’re using the basis for and for . If we actually write out the entries in their column form, we get something like this:
Look familiar? Matrices are representations of linear transformations in a given basis! It will be important to remember that the bases are largely irrelevant, and that two maps are the same if they do the same thing to the space, even if they look different in different bases. For now, this is a side issue, but know that it will become an important question later on. Tomorrow we will look at lots of examples and how to apply matrices to vectors.
A note on the subscripts:
The notation I am using is 100% made up by me. Some people have do it like . I actually like this notation better, but I can’t seem to get the right-side subcripts to work in these posts on a big matrix. Oh well.