Linear Algebra Miniatures: Day 3
This semester I am teaching a class called âLinear Algebra and Differential Equationsâ, so I thought Iâd spend a couple minutes at the beginning of classes talking about linear algebra. (The full backstory can be found here)
For those of you coming from the linear algebra sequence, weâre going to focus primarily on vector spaces instead of the full force of modules; Most things Iâm going to say are also true at least for free modules, but definitely not everything and Iâll do my best to highlight where those differences arise.
So at some point in your life, youâve probably heard about function composition. Probably for the first time in precalc and then you got a lot of practice with it in calc from the chain rule, u-substitutions, change of variables, and so on. In any case, Iâll remind you how it works: we have two functions $f$ and $g$ and we want to make a third function $f\circ g$:
$$ (f\circ g)(x) = f(g(x)) $$
so you take the input, put it into $g$, and whatever it gives out you put that immediately into $f$, and whatever comes out of $f$ is the number you want.
Not often covered in a precalc class is the following issue:
$$ \begin{align*} f(x) &= 3\log(x) \ g(x) &= \begin{bmatrix} x \ 2x-1 \end{bmatrix} \end{align*} $$
So Iâve defined two perfectly good functions, but if I try to take $f\circ g$, we have to take the logarithm of a vectorâ of course that doesnât make any sense. We say that $f$ and $g$ arenât compatible. Why not? Well, the key here is that the sorts of objects that $f$ takes in need to be the same types of objects that $g$ spits out.
But now we knowâ or at least Iâve said it enough times that maybe youâre starting to believe meâ that there is this relationship between matrices and linear maps. So if $F$ and $G$ are not just functions, but linear maps, you canât stop me from taking the matrix associated to $F$ and the matrix associated to $G$ and the matrix associated to $F\circ G$.
But of course the three maps werenât just random, the last one has a very strong relationship to the first two. Weâd like to be able to say the same for the matrices. In other words, we want to fill in the âmissingâ arrow on the right-hand side.
Of course, we can draw that arrow, which is given precisely by matrix multiplication: $C=AB$. So if I were in the mood to make grandiose statements, I could say âTherefore, in order to understand matrix multiplication, we must first understand the relationship between matrices and linear maps.â
But of course thatâs completely falseâŚ
I mean, it has to be, right? Because we did talk about matrix multiplication in lecture yesterday and we didnât talk about linear maps. And really, thatâs the whole point of matrix multiplication: we donât want to go the long way around the square, and matrix multiplication says we donât have to. We can stay on the right side of the picture without ever even realizing there is a left side.
But this does, I think, explain why matrix multiplication is so weird and counterintuitive; itâs not really an operation on matrices. Itâs an operation on linear maps that we forced to work for matrices. And it ends up being a pretty heavy labor-saving device, so weâre going to go through some effort to really understand it.