Talk:06-240/Classnotes For Thursday November 9: Difference between revisions
From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Does anyone have an intuitive way of understanding matrix multiplication? Specifically, why we take a column of B and a row of A for AxB? There are a few helpful indications of how this can be interpreted (in terms of linear transformations), but I was wondering if anyone had found a stronger (i.e. more natural/intuitive) way of justifying it to themselves. |
|||
--[[User:Wanmike|Wanmike]] 13:44, 8 November 2006 (EST) |
|||
---- |
|||
== Open Question/Discussion == |
|||
Did we ever do "left-multiplication transformations" in class explicitly? (p.92) |
|||
Is there an intuitive way of understanding why matrix multiplication works in the way that it does? |
|||
When we consider AB, it is perhaps natural to see why we take entire columns of B at a time (because they represent one basis), but it is, to me, less clear why we take entire rows at a time (that is, for the computation of one number in AB). |
|||
Yes, though we didn't name the operation - we simply used it. --[[User:Drorbn|Drorbn]] 18:57, 15 November 2006 (EST) |
|||
What, in terms of linear transformations, does a row represent in a matrix? |
|||
Latest revision as of 19:57, 15 November 2006
Does anyone have an intuitive way of understanding matrix multiplication? Specifically, why we take a column of B and a row of A for AxB? There are a few helpful indications of how this can be interpreted (in terms of linear transformations), but I was wondering if anyone had found a stronger (i.e. more natural/intuitive) way of justifying it to themselves. --Wanmike 13:44, 8 November 2006 (EST)
Did we ever do "left-multiplication transformations" in class explicitly? (p.92)
Yes, though we didn't name the operation - we simply used it. --Drorbn 18:57, 15 November 2006 (EST)
