Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What happens if we define $$ \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 2 \\ 1 & 2 \\ 1 & 2 \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 2 & 3 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 4 & 3 \\ 2 & 4 & 3 \\ 2 & 4 & 3 \end{pmatrix} $$ I think computers do this to refresh a part of the screen. But why can't we do it by matrices by filling the remaining rows/columns with zero? Is it related to the definition of vector spaces?

share|cite|improve this question
You can do it if you find any use for it... – Karolis Juodelė Apr 12 '14 at 4:16

Then you are just implying zeros in a third invisible column. If you really want to call that a 3x2 matrix (that there really is no last invisible column of zeros) then I would argue that your idea of subtraction is not a closed operation, which is not desirable. You would also have non-unique additive inverses, which is also not desirable.

There is nothing wrong with "doing it" but that is why it is not defined that way I suppose. It is rather like adding a 2d vector (a,b) to a 3d vector (c, d, e). You can say it is (a+c, b+d, e) if you want, but you didn't really add a 2d vector to a 3d vector, you added a 3d embedding of the 2d vector in the 3d space to a 3d vector. I think (a,b) in R² can be identified naturally with (a,b,0) in R³, but they are not the same -object.-

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.