Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Reciprocal links
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

Multiplication of Matrices

Matrices are rectangular arrays with components from a field. An mxn (read "m by n") matrix is thus an array (aik) where i changes from 1 through m whereas k ranges from 1 through n. More explicitly,

a11 a12 a13 ... a1n
a21 a22 a23 ... a2n
a31 a32 a33 ... a3n
...
am1 am2 am3 ... amn

which has m rows and n columns.

With every mxn matrix A we may associate m row (1xn) vectors ai, and n column (mx1) vectors a,k. Should there be two matrices: an mxn matrix A=(aik) and an mxp matrix B=(bks), their product is defined as an mxp matrix C=(cis), where

cis = (ai,.b,s)

and inside parentheses I used the scalar (dot) product of two vectors.

The first thing to note is that not any two matrices can be multiplied. To carry out the multiplication we must have the column dimension of the left factor equal to the row dimension of the right factor. Nonetheless, wherever defined, the product is associative and distributive relative to the standard matrix addition. Matrix multiplication changes dimensions; so it's hard to talk about a unit element in general. A fruitful approach is to confine the study to square (m=n) matrices of the same dimension. So, let's for a while assume that all matrices below have dimension nxn. The benefit is immediate: any two such matrices can be multiplied. Moreover, the product is a matrix with the same dimension. This may be expressed by saying that

For a fixed n, the set of all nxn matrices is closed under matrix addition and multiplication.

With respect to addition, this set is an abelian group. Adding multiplication makes it a ring. The unit element is uniquely defined by E=(eik), where eik is the Kronecker's symbol eik=1 iff i=k, and eik=0, otherwise. (In matrix theory, the matrix is known as the identity matrix. All elements of an identity matrix are zero, except for the main diagonal, where all elements are 1.)

Not all square matrices are invertible. But, if both A and B are, then so is their product AB. Furthermore,

(AB)-1 = B-1A-1

This is verified formally:

(B-1A-1)(AB) = B-1(A-1A)B = B-1EB = B-1(EB) = B-1B = E.

and in a similar manner (AB)(B-1A-1) = E. However, in general, ABBA. For example,

Thus the set of all invertible matrices does not form a field. To get a field we might restrict our discussion even further to the set of invertible diagonal matrices. A matrix A is diagonal if all its off-diagonal elements are zero: aik=0 if ik. A diagonal matrix is invertible iff aii0 for all i.


To get a feeling for the definitions and facts claimed above, it's best to consider circumstances in which the theory acquires an intuitive meaning. In short, matrices give numerical expression to linear transformations of vector spaces.


Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

28774343Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:


Latest on CTK Exchange
Math
Posted by Laura
2 messages
06:56 AM, Apr-15-08

Divisibility rules - Jargon buste ...
Posted by Carolyn
2 messages
08:35 AM, Apr-04-08

drawing puzzle
Posted by martin gran
31 messages
06:53 PM, May-09-08

conway's game of life
Posted by frequency
0 messages
11:52 PM, May-12-08

Mistake on the page (an aside, Be ...
Posted by Max
4 messages
10:28 AM, Feb-28-08

Need details on a part of Proof o ...
Posted by Manuel S.
2 messages
05:24 PM, May-16-08

Josephus Flavius (correction)
Posted by David Turner
1 messages
09:42 AM, May-14-08