Concept of linear mappings are confusing me












6












$begingroup$


I'm so confused on how we can have a 2x3 matrix A, multiply it by a vector in $Bbb R^3$ and then end up with a vector in $Bbb R^2$. Is it possible to visualize this at all or do I need to sort of blindly accept this concept as facts that I'll accept and use?
Can someone give a very brief summarization on why this makes sense? Because I just see it as, in a world (dimension) in $Bbb R^3$, we multiply it by a vector in $Bbb R^3$, and out pops a vector in $Bbb R^2$.



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    maybe think of multiplying a matrix by a vector as a special case of multiplying a matrix by a matrix
    $endgroup$
    – J. W. Tanner
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Is it the definition of matrix multiplication that gives you trouble? Have you tried doing a multiplication and seeing what you get? Do you understand that we can have a function like $f(x,y,z)=(x-2y+z, 2x+4y-z)$ which maps $mathbb R^3$ to $mathbb R^2$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    I think it's just visualizing it that gives me trouble. Like simple vector addition, I can easily say, oh ok just add the $x_1$ unit to the other $x_1$ unit and it stretches towards $x_1$'s side! But in this case, just multiplying a vector by something in one dimension and getting a vector in another dimensions just confuses me. And I do know we can have a function like that, it's just intuitively I guess I don't really understand it
    $endgroup$
    – ming
    1 hour ago
















6












$begingroup$


I'm so confused on how we can have a 2x3 matrix A, multiply it by a vector in $Bbb R^3$ and then end up with a vector in $Bbb R^2$. Is it possible to visualize this at all or do I need to sort of blindly accept this concept as facts that I'll accept and use?
Can someone give a very brief summarization on why this makes sense? Because I just see it as, in a world (dimension) in $Bbb R^3$, we multiply it by a vector in $Bbb R^3$, and out pops a vector in $Bbb R^2$.



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    maybe think of multiplying a matrix by a vector as a special case of multiplying a matrix by a matrix
    $endgroup$
    – J. W. Tanner
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Is it the definition of matrix multiplication that gives you trouble? Have you tried doing a multiplication and seeing what you get? Do you understand that we can have a function like $f(x,y,z)=(x-2y+z, 2x+4y-z)$ which maps $mathbb R^3$ to $mathbb R^2$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    I think it's just visualizing it that gives me trouble. Like simple vector addition, I can easily say, oh ok just add the $x_1$ unit to the other $x_1$ unit and it stretches towards $x_1$'s side! But in this case, just multiplying a vector by something in one dimension and getting a vector in another dimensions just confuses me. And I do know we can have a function like that, it's just intuitively I guess I don't really understand it
    $endgroup$
    – ming
    1 hour ago














6












6








6





$begingroup$


I'm so confused on how we can have a 2x3 matrix A, multiply it by a vector in $Bbb R^3$ and then end up with a vector in $Bbb R^2$. Is it possible to visualize this at all or do I need to sort of blindly accept this concept as facts that I'll accept and use?
Can someone give a very brief summarization on why this makes sense? Because I just see it as, in a world (dimension) in $Bbb R^3$, we multiply it by a vector in $Bbb R^3$, and out pops a vector in $Bbb R^2$.



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I'm so confused on how we can have a 2x3 matrix A, multiply it by a vector in $Bbb R^3$ and then end up with a vector in $Bbb R^2$. Is it possible to visualize this at all or do I need to sort of blindly accept this concept as facts that I'll accept and use?
Can someone give a very brief summarization on why this makes sense? Because I just see it as, in a world (dimension) in $Bbb R^3$, we multiply it by a vector in $Bbb R^3$, and out pops a vector in $Bbb R^2$.



Thanks!







linear-algebra






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 3 hours ago









mingming

4356




4356








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    maybe think of multiplying a matrix by a vector as a special case of multiplying a matrix by a matrix
    $endgroup$
    – J. W. Tanner
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Is it the definition of matrix multiplication that gives you trouble? Have you tried doing a multiplication and seeing what you get? Do you understand that we can have a function like $f(x,y,z)=(x-2y+z, 2x+4y-z)$ which maps $mathbb R^3$ to $mathbb R^2$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    I think it's just visualizing it that gives me trouble. Like simple vector addition, I can easily say, oh ok just add the $x_1$ unit to the other $x_1$ unit and it stretches towards $x_1$'s side! But in this case, just multiplying a vector by something in one dimension and getting a vector in another dimensions just confuses me. And I do know we can have a function like that, it's just intuitively I guess I don't really understand it
    $endgroup$
    – ming
    1 hour ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    maybe think of multiplying a matrix by a vector as a special case of multiplying a matrix by a matrix
    $endgroup$
    – J. W. Tanner
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Is it the definition of matrix multiplication that gives you trouble? Have you tried doing a multiplication and seeing what you get? Do you understand that we can have a function like $f(x,y,z)=(x-2y+z, 2x+4y-z)$ which maps $mathbb R^3$ to $mathbb R^2$?
    $endgroup$
    – John Douma
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    I think it's just visualizing it that gives me trouble. Like simple vector addition, I can easily say, oh ok just add the $x_1$ unit to the other $x_1$ unit and it stretches towards $x_1$'s side! But in this case, just multiplying a vector by something in one dimension and getting a vector in another dimensions just confuses me. And I do know we can have a function like that, it's just intuitively I guess I don't really understand it
    $endgroup$
    – ming
    1 hour ago








1




1




$begingroup$
maybe think of multiplying a matrix by a vector as a special case of multiplying a matrix by a matrix
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
maybe think of multiplying a matrix by a vector as a special case of multiplying a matrix by a matrix
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
Is it the definition of matrix multiplication that gives you trouble? Have you tried doing a multiplication and seeing what you get? Do you understand that we can have a function like $f(x,y,z)=(x-2y+z, 2x+4y-z)$ which maps $mathbb R^3$ to $mathbb R^2$?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
3 hours ago






$begingroup$
Is it the definition of matrix multiplication that gives you trouble? Have you tried doing a multiplication and seeing what you get? Do you understand that we can have a function like $f(x,y,z)=(x-2y+z, 2x+4y-z)$ which maps $mathbb R^3$ to $mathbb R^2$?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
3 hours ago














$begingroup$
I think it's just visualizing it that gives me trouble. Like simple vector addition, I can easily say, oh ok just add the $x_1$ unit to the other $x_1$ unit and it stretches towards $x_1$'s side! But in this case, just multiplying a vector by something in one dimension and getting a vector in another dimensions just confuses me. And I do know we can have a function like that, it's just intuitively I guess I don't really understand it
$endgroup$
– ming
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
I think it's just visualizing it that gives me trouble. Like simple vector addition, I can easily say, oh ok just add the $x_1$ unit to the other $x_1$ unit and it stretches towards $x_1$'s side! But in this case, just multiplying a vector by something in one dimension and getting a vector in another dimensions just confuses me. And I do know we can have a function like that, it's just intuitively I guess I don't really understand it
$endgroup$
– ming
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

A more intuitive way is to think of a matrix "performing" on a vector, instead of a matrix "multiplying" with a vector.



Let's give an example. You have some triples of real numbers:



(1,2,3), (2,5,1), (3,5,9), (2,9,8)


and you "forget" the third coordinate:



(1,2), (2,5), (3,5), (2,9)


Surprisingly, this is an example of "matrix performance." Can you find
a matrix $M$ that "forgets" the third coordinate?



Answer:




The matrix is $$left(begin{array}{l}1 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 end{array}right)$$




Explanation:




To get the first row, think about what happens under matrix multiplication to the vector $(1,0,0)$. The next two rows are similar.




We call such a matrix $M$ a projection.
We may visualize the projection as such.



Projection; Image from www.math4all.in



Can you see what it means to "forget" the
third coordinate?



The important part of
a projection is linearity:




  • You may project the addition of two vectors, or you may
    add the projection of two vectors and you get the same result.

  • Similarly, you may project a scaled vector, or scale the vector
    and then project it, and you get the same result.


We call a function with the linearity property a linear function.



In symbols, for any linear $f$,




  • $f(v + w) = f(v) + f(w)$

  • $f(cv) = cf(v)$


We see that the projection defined above is a
linear function.
Actually, you can check that every matrix is a linear function.
Perhaps it is more surprising that every linear function is a matrix. You may think of a matrix as a way to represent some linear function.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This was really helpful, thanks! Now if we "forget" about that third element, does that mean that the third dimension just totally disappears? The z-axis is just removed completely?
    $endgroup$
    – ming
    1 hour ago



















4












$begingroup$

For the moment don't think about multiplication and matrices.



You can imagine starting from a vector $(x,y,z)$ in $mathbb{R}^3$ and mapping it to a vector in $mathbb{R}^2$ this way, for example:
$$
(x, y, z) mapsto (2x+ z, 3x+ 4y).
$$



Mathematicians have invented a nice clean way to write that map. It's the formalism you've learned for matrix multiplication. To see what $(1,2,3)$ maps to, calculate the matrix product
$$
begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0 & 1 \
3 & 4 & 0
end{bmatrix}
begin{bmatrix}
1 \
2 \
3
end{bmatrix}
=
begin{bmatrix}
5\
11
end{bmatrix}.
$$



You will soon be comfortable with this, just as you are now with whatever algorithm you were taught for ordinary multiplication. Then you will be free to focus on understanding what maps like this are useful for.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    So in really simple terms, is (5, 11) a vector in 2 dimensions, that just "looks" like the vector (1, 2, 3) in 3 dimensions?
    $endgroup$
    – ming
    59 mins ago



















0












$begingroup$

A linear mapping has the property that it maps subspaces to subspaces.



So it will map a line to a line or ${0}$, a plane to a plane, a line, or ${0}$, and so on.



By definition, linear mappings “play nice” with addition and scaling. These properties allow us to reduce statements about entire vector spaces down to bases, which are quite “small” in the finite dimensional case.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3179032%2fconcept-of-linear-mappings-are-confusing-me%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5












    $begingroup$

    A more intuitive way is to think of a matrix "performing" on a vector, instead of a matrix "multiplying" with a vector.



    Let's give an example. You have some triples of real numbers:



    (1,2,3), (2,5,1), (3,5,9), (2,9,8)


    and you "forget" the third coordinate:



    (1,2), (2,5), (3,5), (2,9)


    Surprisingly, this is an example of "matrix performance." Can you find
    a matrix $M$ that "forgets" the third coordinate?



    Answer:




    The matrix is $$left(begin{array}{l}1 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 end{array}right)$$




    Explanation:




    To get the first row, think about what happens under matrix multiplication to the vector $(1,0,0)$. The next two rows are similar.




    We call such a matrix $M$ a projection.
    We may visualize the projection as such.



    Projection; Image from www.math4all.in



    Can you see what it means to "forget" the
    third coordinate?



    The important part of
    a projection is linearity:




    • You may project the addition of two vectors, or you may
      add the projection of two vectors and you get the same result.

    • Similarly, you may project a scaled vector, or scale the vector
      and then project it, and you get the same result.


    We call a function with the linearity property a linear function.



    In symbols, for any linear $f$,




    • $f(v + w) = f(v) + f(w)$

    • $f(cv) = cf(v)$


    We see that the projection defined above is a
    linear function.
    Actually, you can check that every matrix is a linear function.
    Perhaps it is more surprising that every linear function is a matrix. You may think of a matrix as a way to represent some linear function.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This was really helpful, thanks! Now if we "forget" about that third element, does that mean that the third dimension just totally disappears? The z-axis is just removed completely?
      $endgroup$
      – ming
      1 hour ago
















    5












    $begingroup$

    A more intuitive way is to think of a matrix "performing" on a vector, instead of a matrix "multiplying" with a vector.



    Let's give an example. You have some triples of real numbers:



    (1,2,3), (2,5,1), (3,5,9), (2,9,8)


    and you "forget" the third coordinate:



    (1,2), (2,5), (3,5), (2,9)


    Surprisingly, this is an example of "matrix performance." Can you find
    a matrix $M$ that "forgets" the third coordinate?



    Answer:




    The matrix is $$left(begin{array}{l}1 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 end{array}right)$$




    Explanation:




    To get the first row, think about what happens under matrix multiplication to the vector $(1,0,0)$. The next two rows are similar.




    We call such a matrix $M$ a projection.
    We may visualize the projection as such.



    Projection; Image from www.math4all.in



    Can you see what it means to "forget" the
    third coordinate?



    The important part of
    a projection is linearity:




    • You may project the addition of two vectors, or you may
      add the projection of two vectors and you get the same result.

    • Similarly, you may project a scaled vector, or scale the vector
      and then project it, and you get the same result.


    We call a function with the linearity property a linear function.



    In symbols, for any linear $f$,




    • $f(v + w) = f(v) + f(w)$

    • $f(cv) = cf(v)$


    We see that the projection defined above is a
    linear function.
    Actually, you can check that every matrix is a linear function.
    Perhaps it is more surprising that every linear function is a matrix. You may think of a matrix as a way to represent some linear function.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This was really helpful, thanks! Now if we "forget" about that third element, does that mean that the third dimension just totally disappears? The z-axis is just removed completely?
      $endgroup$
      – ming
      1 hour ago














    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    A more intuitive way is to think of a matrix "performing" on a vector, instead of a matrix "multiplying" with a vector.



    Let's give an example. You have some triples of real numbers:



    (1,2,3), (2,5,1), (3,5,9), (2,9,8)


    and you "forget" the third coordinate:



    (1,2), (2,5), (3,5), (2,9)


    Surprisingly, this is an example of "matrix performance." Can you find
    a matrix $M$ that "forgets" the third coordinate?



    Answer:




    The matrix is $$left(begin{array}{l}1 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 end{array}right)$$




    Explanation:




    To get the first row, think about what happens under matrix multiplication to the vector $(1,0,0)$. The next two rows are similar.




    We call such a matrix $M$ a projection.
    We may visualize the projection as such.



    Projection; Image from www.math4all.in



    Can you see what it means to "forget" the
    third coordinate?



    The important part of
    a projection is linearity:




    • You may project the addition of two vectors, or you may
      add the projection of two vectors and you get the same result.

    • Similarly, you may project a scaled vector, or scale the vector
      and then project it, and you get the same result.


    We call a function with the linearity property a linear function.



    In symbols, for any linear $f$,




    • $f(v + w) = f(v) + f(w)$

    • $f(cv) = cf(v)$


    We see that the projection defined above is a
    linear function.
    Actually, you can check that every matrix is a linear function.
    Perhaps it is more surprising that every linear function is a matrix. You may think of a matrix as a way to represent some linear function.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    A more intuitive way is to think of a matrix "performing" on a vector, instead of a matrix "multiplying" with a vector.



    Let's give an example. You have some triples of real numbers:



    (1,2,3), (2,5,1), (3,5,9), (2,9,8)


    and you "forget" the third coordinate:



    (1,2), (2,5), (3,5), (2,9)


    Surprisingly, this is an example of "matrix performance." Can you find
    a matrix $M$ that "forgets" the third coordinate?



    Answer:




    The matrix is $$left(begin{array}{l}1 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 end{array}right)$$




    Explanation:




    To get the first row, think about what happens under matrix multiplication to the vector $(1,0,0)$. The next two rows are similar.




    We call such a matrix $M$ a projection.
    We may visualize the projection as such.



    Projection; Image from www.math4all.in



    Can you see what it means to "forget" the
    third coordinate?



    The important part of
    a projection is linearity:




    • You may project the addition of two vectors, or you may
      add the projection of two vectors and you get the same result.

    • Similarly, you may project a scaled vector, or scale the vector
      and then project it, and you get the same result.


    We call a function with the linearity property a linear function.



    In symbols, for any linear $f$,




    • $f(v + w) = f(v) + f(w)$

    • $f(cv) = cf(v)$


    We see that the projection defined above is a
    linear function.
    Actually, you can check that every matrix is a linear function.
    Perhaps it is more surprising that every linear function is a matrix. You may think of a matrix as a way to represent some linear function.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 18 mins ago

























    answered 2 hours ago









    user156213user156213

    65338




    65338












    • $begingroup$
      This was really helpful, thanks! Now if we "forget" about that third element, does that mean that the third dimension just totally disappears? The z-axis is just removed completely?
      $endgroup$
      – ming
      1 hour ago


















    • $begingroup$
      This was really helpful, thanks! Now if we "forget" about that third element, does that mean that the third dimension just totally disappears? The z-axis is just removed completely?
      $endgroup$
      – ming
      1 hour ago
















    $begingroup$
    This was really helpful, thanks! Now if we "forget" about that third element, does that mean that the third dimension just totally disappears? The z-axis is just removed completely?
    $endgroup$
    – ming
    1 hour ago




    $begingroup$
    This was really helpful, thanks! Now if we "forget" about that third element, does that mean that the third dimension just totally disappears? The z-axis is just removed completely?
    $endgroup$
    – ming
    1 hour ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    For the moment don't think about multiplication and matrices.



    You can imagine starting from a vector $(x,y,z)$ in $mathbb{R}^3$ and mapping it to a vector in $mathbb{R}^2$ this way, for example:
    $$
    (x, y, z) mapsto (2x+ z, 3x+ 4y).
    $$



    Mathematicians have invented a nice clean way to write that map. It's the formalism you've learned for matrix multiplication. To see what $(1,2,3)$ maps to, calculate the matrix product
    $$
    begin{bmatrix}
    2 & 0 & 1 \
    3 & 4 & 0
    end{bmatrix}
    begin{bmatrix}
    1 \
    2 \
    3
    end{bmatrix}
    =
    begin{bmatrix}
    5\
    11
    end{bmatrix}.
    $$



    You will soon be comfortable with this, just as you are now with whatever algorithm you were taught for ordinary multiplication. Then you will be free to focus on understanding what maps like this are useful for.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      So in really simple terms, is (5, 11) a vector in 2 dimensions, that just "looks" like the vector (1, 2, 3) in 3 dimensions?
      $endgroup$
      – ming
      59 mins ago
















    4












    $begingroup$

    For the moment don't think about multiplication and matrices.



    You can imagine starting from a vector $(x,y,z)$ in $mathbb{R}^3$ and mapping it to a vector in $mathbb{R}^2$ this way, for example:
    $$
    (x, y, z) mapsto (2x+ z, 3x+ 4y).
    $$



    Mathematicians have invented a nice clean way to write that map. It's the formalism you've learned for matrix multiplication. To see what $(1,2,3)$ maps to, calculate the matrix product
    $$
    begin{bmatrix}
    2 & 0 & 1 \
    3 & 4 & 0
    end{bmatrix}
    begin{bmatrix}
    1 \
    2 \
    3
    end{bmatrix}
    =
    begin{bmatrix}
    5\
    11
    end{bmatrix}.
    $$



    You will soon be comfortable with this, just as you are now with whatever algorithm you were taught for ordinary multiplication. Then you will be free to focus on understanding what maps like this are useful for.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      So in really simple terms, is (5, 11) a vector in 2 dimensions, that just "looks" like the vector (1, 2, 3) in 3 dimensions?
      $endgroup$
      – ming
      59 mins ago














    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    For the moment don't think about multiplication and matrices.



    You can imagine starting from a vector $(x,y,z)$ in $mathbb{R}^3$ and mapping it to a vector in $mathbb{R}^2$ this way, for example:
    $$
    (x, y, z) mapsto (2x+ z, 3x+ 4y).
    $$



    Mathematicians have invented a nice clean way to write that map. It's the formalism you've learned for matrix multiplication. To see what $(1,2,3)$ maps to, calculate the matrix product
    $$
    begin{bmatrix}
    2 & 0 & 1 \
    3 & 4 & 0
    end{bmatrix}
    begin{bmatrix}
    1 \
    2 \
    3
    end{bmatrix}
    =
    begin{bmatrix}
    5\
    11
    end{bmatrix}.
    $$



    You will soon be comfortable with this, just as you are now with whatever algorithm you were taught for ordinary multiplication. Then you will be free to focus on understanding what maps like this are useful for.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    For the moment don't think about multiplication and matrices.



    You can imagine starting from a vector $(x,y,z)$ in $mathbb{R}^3$ and mapping it to a vector in $mathbb{R}^2$ this way, for example:
    $$
    (x, y, z) mapsto (2x+ z, 3x+ 4y).
    $$



    Mathematicians have invented a nice clean way to write that map. It's the formalism you've learned for matrix multiplication. To see what $(1,2,3)$ maps to, calculate the matrix product
    $$
    begin{bmatrix}
    2 & 0 & 1 \
    3 & 4 & 0
    end{bmatrix}
    begin{bmatrix}
    1 \
    2 \
    3
    end{bmatrix}
    =
    begin{bmatrix}
    5\
    11
    end{bmatrix}.
    $$



    You will soon be comfortable with this, just as you are now with whatever algorithm you were taught for ordinary multiplication. Then you will be free to focus on understanding what maps like this are useful for.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 3 hours ago









    Ethan BolkerEthan Bolker

    45.8k553120




    45.8k553120












    • $begingroup$
      So in really simple terms, is (5, 11) a vector in 2 dimensions, that just "looks" like the vector (1, 2, 3) in 3 dimensions?
      $endgroup$
      – ming
      59 mins ago


















    • $begingroup$
      So in really simple terms, is (5, 11) a vector in 2 dimensions, that just "looks" like the vector (1, 2, 3) in 3 dimensions?
      $endgroup$
      – ming
      59 mins ago
















    $begingroup$
    So in really simple terms, is (5, 11) a vector in 2 dimensions, that just "looks" like the vector (1, 2, 3) in 3 dimensions?
    $endgroup$
    – ming
    59 mins ago




    $begingroup$
    So in really simple terms, is (5, 11) a vector in 2 dimensions, that just "looks" like the vector (1, 2, 3) in 3 dimensions?
    $endgroup$
    – ming
    59 mins ago











    0












    $begingroup$

    A linear mapping has the property that it maps subspaces to subspaces.



    So it will map a line to a line or ${0}$, a plane to a plane, a line, or ${0}$, and so on.



    By definition, linear mappings “play nice” with addition and scaling. These properties allow us to reduce statements about entire vector spaces down to bases, which are quite “small” in the finite dimensional case.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      A linear mapping has the property that it maps subspaces to subspaces.



      So it will map a line to a line or ${0}$, a plane to a plane, a line, or ${0}$, and so on.



      By definition, linear mappings “play nice” with addition and scaling. These properties allow us to reduce statements about entire vector spaces down to bases, which are quite “small” in the finite dimensional case.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        A linear mapping has the property that it maps subspaces to subspaces.



        So it will map a line to a line or ${0}$, a plane to a plane, a line, or ${0}$, and so on.



        By definition, linear mappings “play nice” with addition and scaling. These properties allow us to reduce statements about entire vector spaces down to bases, which are quite “small” in the finite dimensional case.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        A linear mapping has the property that it maps subspaces to subspaces.



        So it will map a line to a line or ${0}$, a plane to a plane, a line, or ${0}$, and so on.



        By definition, linear mappings “play nice” with addition and scaling. These properties allow us to reduce statements about entire vector spaces down to bases, which are quite “small” in the finite dimensional case.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 3 hours ago









        rschwiebrschwieb

        108k12103253




        108k12103253






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3179032%2fconcept-of-linear-mappings-are-confusing-me%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Ponta tanko

            Tantalo (mitologio)

            Erzsébet Schaár