Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My lecture notes say that for every bilinear form there exists a linear operator such that $$\tau (v,w) = v.(Tw)$$ and that there must exist some other linear operator $S$ such that $$(Sv).w = v.(Tw).$$ I understand everything up to there but then it says that it's easy to see that in an orthonormal basis, the matrix of S is just the transpose of the matrix of T. I can't get my head around why it has to be an orthonormal basis. Surely, if $A$ is the matrix for $T$ and $B$ is the matrix for $S$ then, $$(Sv).w = v.(Tw)$$ $$(B\underline{v})^T\underline{w} = \underline{v}^T A\underline{w}$$ $$\underline{v}^T B^T \underline{w} = \underline{v}^T A\underline{w}$$ So $B^T = A$ for any basis? Where am I going wrong?

share|improve this question
    
How come that your "dot product" on the original vectorspace is (in your basis) the euclidian scalarproduct in $\mathbb R^n$? –  Blah Apr 6 '12 at 15:28
    
Because the standard scalar product $\underline{x}.\underline{y} =\underline{x}^T \underline{y}$ so if A is the matrix of the bilinear form, $\tau(v,w) = \underline{v}^T A \underline{w} = v.(Tw)$? –  user26069 Apr 6 '12 at 16:15
    
could you please describe the situation? Is your vectorspace $\mathbb R^n$ and "." the euclidian scalarproduct? –  Blah Apr 6 '12 at 16:45
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 0 down vote accepted

By using that $v.\omega$ is $\underline{v}^T\underline{w}$, you are assuming that your basis is orthonormal. Because if, say, $V$ is 2-dimensional and $f_1,f_2$ is your basis, then you seem to claim that you see $f_1$ as $[1\ 0]^T$, $f_2=[0\ 1]^T$, and that $$ f_1.f_2=([1\ 0]^T)^T[0\ 1]^T=0. $$

That's of course not necessarily the case. Consider $\mathbb{R}^2$ with the basis $f_1=(1,0)$, $f_2=(1,1)$, with the usual dot product. Then, as vectors in the basis $\{f_1,f_2\}$, we associate $f_1$ with $[1\ 0]^T$ and $f_2$ with $[0\ 1]^T$, but $f_1.f_2=1$, which cannot be obtained by doing the product $f_1^Tf_2$ as matrices in their own basis.

Still in this basis, consider the operator $T$ given by $Tf_1=f_2$, $Tf_2=0$. Then, in the basis $\{f_1,f_2\}$, the operator $T$ is represented by the matrix $$ \begin{bmatrix}0&1\\ 0&0\end{bmatrix}. $$ Let us calculate the entries of $S$ (usually denoted by $T^*$ and called the adjoint of $T$) in the basis $\{f_1,f_2\}$: \begin{eqnarray} S_{11}&=&(Sf_1).f_1=f_1.(Tf_1)=f_1.f_2=1,\ S_{12}&=&(Sf_2).f_1=f_2.Tf_1=f_2.f_2=2,\ S_{21}&=&(Sf_1).f_2=f_1.Tf_2=f_1.0=0,\ S_{22}&=&(Sf_2).f_2=f_2.Tf_2=f_2.0=0. \end{eqnarray} So, in the basis $\{f_1,f_2\}$, the matrix for $S$ is $$ \begin{bmatrix} 1&2\\ 0&0 \end{bmatrix} $$

share|improve this answer
add comment

There is nothing wrong, and the result is true for any basis.

However, the analysis above skips over the tedious bits by jumping from the vectors ($v, w, S v, T w$) in the vector space $V$ to their representations in $\mathbb{R^n}$ ($\underline{v}, \underline{w}, B \underline{v}, A \underline{w} $). This tedium is considerably reduced by choosing an orthonormal basis.

share|improve this answer
1  
My answer is a little glib; to obtain the matrix representation of $T$ or $S$, a linear bijection $L:\mathbb{R^n} \rightarrow V$ is needed. However, you cannot use just any map, you need to preserve the dot (inner) product, so that if $x,y \in \mathbb{R^n}$, then $Lx . Ly = x^T y$. –  copper.hat Apr 6 '12 at 23:36
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.