| word looked up : | home / archive |
Matrix multiplicationThis article gives an overview of the various ways to multiply matrices.The Einstein summation convention is used throughout. | |||
By far the most important way to multiply matrices is the usual matrix multiplication. It is defined between two matrices only if the number of columns of the first matrix is the same as the number of rows of the second matrix. If A is an m-by-n matrix and B is an n-by-p matrix, then their product AB is an m-by-p matrix given by
for each pair i and j.
The following picture shows how to calculate the (AB)12 element of AB if A is a 2x4 matrix, and B is a 4x3 matrix. Elements from each matrix are paired off in the direction of the arrows; each pair is multiplied and the products are added. The location of the resulting number in AB corresponds to the row and column that were considered.
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 2 \\
-1 & 3 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\times
\begin{bmatrix}
3 & 1 \\
2 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
</math>
Thisn'tion of multiplication is important because A and B are interpreted as linear transformations (which is almost universally done), then the matrix product AB corresponds to the composition of the two linear transformations, with B being applied first.
In general, matrix multiplication isn't commutative, ie AB isn't equal to BA.
For two matrices of the same dimensions, we have the Hadamard product or entrywise product. The Hadamard[?] product of two m-by-n matrices A and B, denoted by A · B, is an m-by-n matrix given by (A·B)[i,j]=A[i,j] * B[i,j]. For instance
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 3 & 2 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 2 & 2
\end{bmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 2 \\
7 & 5 & 0 \\
2 & 1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 4 \\
7 & 0 & 0 \\
2 & 2 & 2
\end{bmatrix}
</math>
Note that the Hadamard product is a submatrix of the Kronecker product (see below). Hadamard product is studied by matrix theorists, but it is virtually untouched by linear algebraists.
For any two arbitrary matrices A=(aij) and B, we have the direct product or Kronecker product A B defined as
\begin{bmatrix}
a_{11}B & a_{12}B & \cdots & a_{1n}B \\
\vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\
a_{n1}B & a_{n2}B & \cdots & a_{mn}B
\end{bmatrix}
</math>
(the HTML entity ⊗ (⊗) represents the direct product, but isn't supported on older browsers)
Note that if A is m-by-n and B is p-by-r then A B is an mp-by-nr matrix. Again this multiplication isn't commutative.
For example
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 2 \\
3 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\otimes
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 3 \\
2 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 3 & 0 & 6 \\
2 & 1 & 4 & 2 \\
0 & 9 & 0 & 3 \\
6 & 3 & 2 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
</math>.
If A and B represent linear transformations V1 → W1 and V2 → W2, respectively, then A B represents the tensor product of the two maps, V1 V2 → W1 W2.
All three notions of matrix multiplication are associative
The scalar multiplication of a matrix A=(aij) and a scalar r gives the product
If we are concerns with matrices over a ring, then the above multiplicaion is sometimes called the left multiplication while the right multiplication is defined to be
When the underlying ring is commutative, for example, the real or complex number field, the two multiplications are the same. However, if the ring isn't commutative, such as the quaternions, they may be different. For example
i\begin{bmatrix}
i & 0 \\
0 & j \\
\end{bmatrix}
i & 0 \\
0 & j \\
\end{bmatrix}i
</math>
How
tacked to them?" This atrocious threat, worthy of the tribune of
seems to have passed unreprehended. It was meant--such at least
was confined by illness. He had been unable to take any public
them for engaging in a conflict in which he justly thought that
hoped that they might be able to direct against him the whole
encouraged by the wild and almost savage temper of his hearers,
virtue which presented the strongest contrast to his own
said, the Lord Chancellor was a man of parts. Anybody might be
a very good advocate might be a very bad minister; and, of all
plausible, fair-spoken person was the most dangerous. Nor was the
was no better than a Hobbist in religion.
After a long sitting the members separated; but they reassembled
April. A conference was held; and Seymour, as chief manager for
the manner which had been prescribed to him. From the Painted
passed. "If," he said, "I may venture to judge by the looks.html">looks and
hour evil tidings came through the Court of Requests and the
adhere to their amendments. Forty-seven had voted for adhering,
with gloomy looks, and in great agitation. All London looked
feeling was in favour of the bill. It was rumoured that the
swollen by several prelates, by several of the illegitimate sons
The cry in all the public places of resort was that the nation
On Wednesday the tenth, at length, the contest came to a decisive
conference. It was held; and Pembroke delivered back to Seymour
concise, but luminous and forcible, exposition of the grounds.
On
wordlookup.net
All is still licensed under the GNU FDL.
It uses material from the wikipedia.
|
|