17
$\begingroup$

this was the question posed to me. does there exist a matrix $A$ for which $AM$ = $M^T$ for every $M$.the answer to this is obviously no as i can vary the dimension of $M$. but now this lead me to think , if i take , lets say only $2\times2$ matrix into consideration. now for a matrix $M$,$A=M^TM^{-1}$ so $A$ is not fixed and depends on $M$, but the operation follows all conditions of a linear transformation and i had read that any linear transformation can be represented as a matrix. so is the last statement wrong or my argument flawed?

$\endgroup$
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ The question "is $M\mapsto M^T$ linear" is not the same as (nor even related to) "does there exist $A$ such that $M^T=AM$. $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Feb 11 '15 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcvanLeeuwen all linear transformation can be represented by matrices right? $\endgroup$ – avz2611 Feb 11 '15 at 15:04
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @avz2611 Yes, but the dimension of the transformation $M \mapsto M^T$ is different from the dimension of $M$, so $A$ cannot both represent this transformation and be multiplied by $M$. $\endgroup$ – 211792 Feb 11 '15 at 15:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes all all linear transformations (between finite dimensional spaces $V,W$) can be represented by matrices, with respect to chosen bases of $V,W$. Matrix multiplication operates on a column vector of coordinates of the argument with respect to the first basis. But $M$ cannot be taken to be the column vector of its own coordinates for any basis, simply because $M$ is not a column to begin with. Note that the representing matrix always operates by matrix$\times$column product, whi is not what you are doing. $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Feb 11 '15 at 15:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NowIGetToLearnWhatAHeadIs: Yes I know that, even if the hypothesis turns out to be false for all cases except $n\times n$ matrices for $n\in\{0,1\}$, so it is saying nothing more than $P\to Q$ where $P$ is almost always false and $Q$ is always true. But the confusion of OP is clearly that the reverse implication would hold. $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Feb 12 '15 at 5:50
18
$\begingroup$

The operation that transposes "all" matrices is, itself, not a linear transformation, because linear transformations are only defined on vector spaces.

Also, I do not understand what the matrix $A=M^TM^{-1}$ is supposed to be, especially since $M$ need not be invertible. Your understanding here seems to be lacking...

However:

The operation $\mathcal T_n: \mathbb R^{n\times n}\to\mathbb R^{n\times n}$, defined by $$\mathcal T_n: A\mapsto A^T$$

is a linear transformation. However, it is an operation that maps a $n^2$ dimiensional space into itself, meaning that the matrix representing it will have $n^2$ columns and $n^2$ rows!

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So one could, for example, represent all $2 \times 2$ matrices as 4-dimensional column vectors. Assuming your vector is $\langle a, b, c, d \rangle$, the $4 \times 4$ "transpose matrix" would then be the matrix which swaps $b$ and $c$, which is pretty easy to construct. $\endgroup$ – 211792 Feb 11 '15 at 15:00
  • $\begingroup$ @5xum i was saying if an invertible matrix is given that value of $A$ will give me $M^T$ $\endgroup$ – avz2611 Feb 11 '15 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ @avz2611 Yes, but the matrix $A$ is still a matrix, meaning it is a transformation of vectors, not matrices. If $M$ is a $n$ by $n$ matrix, then $A=M^TM^{-1}$ is a mapping from $\mathbb R^n$ onto itself. The "transpose" is a mapping from the space of matrices onto itself. $\endgroup$ – 5xum Feb 11 '15 at 15:05
7
$\begingroup$

The vector space of $n\times n$ matrices is $n^2$-dimensional, hence the matrix representation of the (indeed) linear map $X\mapsto X^T$ would have to be $n^2\times n^2$ (and you better rearrange/interprete the given $n\times n$ matrices into $n^2\times 1$ column vectors).

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

In addition to the other answers, you certainly have a matrix representation of transpose if you treat $n\times n$ matrices as large vectors ($n^2\times 1$ vector). So that you will have to translate for example a matrix $M=[m_{ij}]_{ij}$ into $(m_{11},\dots,m_{n1},\cdots,m_{1n},\dots,m_{nn})^T$. The transpose sending $m_{ij}$ to $m_{ji}$ is simply the matrix: $$ \begin{pmatrix} \overbrace{1~0~\cdots~0}^{n} \\ & 1~0~\cdots~0 \\ && \ddots\\ &&&1~0~\cdots~0 \\ 0~1~\cdots~0 \\ & 0~1~\cdots~0 \\ && \ddots\\ &&&0~1~\cdots~0 \\ \vdots&\vdots&&\vdots\\ 0~\cdots~0~1 \\ & 0~\cdots~0~1 \\ && \ddots\\ &&&0~\cdots~0~1 \\ \end{pmatrix} $$

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Even if we restrict $A$ and $M$ to be $n \times n$ matrices, there is no such matrix $A$.

Indeed, taking $M=I$, we get $A=I$. But then, taking a non-symmetric matrix $M$, we can't have $AM=M^T$.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

While current answers clearly indicate why the reasoning is not correct, I would like to add one point that has not been mentioned so far. In trying to define $A=M^TM^{-1}$, you are making a matrix $A$ that depends on the argument $M$ that the map is being applied to. That can never be right. While describing a linear transformation as a map involves, like for any map, an expression that gives the result in terms of the argument (as here $M\mapsto M^T$), the matrix representing the linear map must by definition contain constant entries, values that do not depend on the argument (here $M$) the linear map is potentially going to be applied to. This is similar to the coefficients of a polynomial function of$~x$: these coefficient by definition cannot involve$~x$. See also this answer to a related confused question.

Of course this takes nothing away from the other arguments, mostly that $A$ is not the right type of matrix to be considered the matrix representing the linear map $M\mapsto M^T$ (and not to mention the problem you would have for the case of non-square matrices, for which $M\mapsto M^T$ is still a linear transformation).

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I thought I would clarify that the transpose is a linear operation by explicitly giving the set of linear operations that need to be performed on the original matrix to get its transpose. I will give the expression for the case of a square matrix $M_{n \times n}$ but this can be extended to arbitrary matrices too.

Let $I_n$ denote the $n \times n$ identity matrix whose $i^{\rm th}$ column is the standard basis $e_i$. Let $S_{n,n}$ denote the $n^2 \times n^2$ perfect shuffle matrix corresponding to writing an $n^2 \times 1$ vector into an $n \times n$ matrix column-wise and then reading it row-wise. Then, it can be shown that

$$M^T = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( e_{i}^{T} \otimes I_n \right) S_{n,n} \left( I_n \otimes M \right) \left( \sum_{j=1}^{n} e_j \otimes e_j \right) e_{i}^T, $$

where $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product of two matrices. It should be noted that $\left( \sum_{j=1}^{n} e_j \otimes e_j \right) = vec(I_n)$ is just the vectorized form of $I_n$, $\left( I_n \otimes M \right) vec(I_n) = vec(M)$ is the vectorized form of $M$ and $S_{n,n} vec(M) = vec(M^T)$ is the vectorized form of $M^T$. Hence, this also shows that vectorization is a linear transformation.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Answering the title question: "the transpose is a linear map from the space of m × n matrices to the space of all n × m matrices".

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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