Let's say I have a row vector $\vec{a}$ and a column vector $\vec{b}$:

\begin{align} \vec{a}= \begin{pmatrix}4 & 5 & 6\end{pmatrix} \qquad \vec{b} = \begin{pmatrix}1\\2\\3\end{pmatrix} \end{align}

Now if I want to calculate a scalar product, it is easy for $\vec{a} \cdot \vec{b}= \begin{pmatrix}4 & 5 & 6\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1\\2\\3\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}4\cdot1+ 5\cdot 2 + 6\cdot 3\end{pmatrix} = 32.$

but it is not as easy for $\vec{b}\cdot \vec{a}$ where the scalar product is undefined:

\begin{align} \vec{b}\cdot \vec{a} = \begin{pmatrix}1\\2\\3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}4 & 5 & 6\end{pmatrix} \qquad{\scriptsize\text{Not defined!}} \end{align}

So if I take a transpose of both of the vectors I get:

\begin{align} \vec{b}{\hspace{0.4mm}}^\mathsf{T}\cdot \vec{a}{}^\mathsf{T} = \begin{pmatrix}1&2&3\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}4 \\ 5 \\ 6\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}1\cdot4 + 2 \cdot 5 + 3 \cdot 6\end{pmatrix} = 32 \end{align}

So I get a relation that $\vec{a}\cdot\vec{b} = \vec{b}^T \cdot {a}^{T} = 32$. But why do I find a different equation on Wikipedia which says: $(\vec{a}\cdot\vec{b} ){}^\mathsf{T}= \vec{b}{}^\mathsf{T} \cdot \vec{a}{\hspace{0.4mm}}^\mathsf{T}$?

EDIT: If i do it like @Samuel says i define original vectors differently:

\begin{align} \vec{a}= \begin{pmatrix} 4\\ 5 \\ 6 \end{pmatrix} \qquad \vec{b}= \begin{pmatrix} 1\\ 2 \\ 3 \end{pmatrix} \end{align}

And now i try to calculate $\vec{a} \cdot \vec{b}$ which is not defined. I can calculate ${\vec{a}}^T \vec{b}$ though:

\begin{align} {\vec{a}}^T \cdot \vec{b}= \begin{pmatrix} 4& 5 &6 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1\\ 2 \\ 3 \end{pmatrix} = 4\cdot 1 + 5\cdot 2 + 6 \cdot 3 = 32 \end{align}

Now i try to calculate scalar product $\vec{b} \cdot \vec{a}$ and neither this one is defined. But i can calculate ${\vec{b}}^T\cdot \vec{a}$ though:

\begin{align} {\vec{b}}^T \cdot \vec{a}= \begin{pmatrix} 1& 2 &3 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4\\ 5 \\ 6 \end{pmatrix} = 1\cdot 4 + 2\cdot 5 + 3 \cdot 6 = 32 \end{align}

So now i can say ${\vec{a}}^T \cdot \vec{b} = {\vec{b}}^T \cdot \vec{a} $. So this now is a lot wierder and i cant find it on Wikipedia.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Check your "transpose" signs: in the equations you show that $ab=b^Ta^T$, which is correct (because $32^T=32$ when you look at it as a $1\times1$ matrix), and in the last sentence you change the order - which part exactly is not clear to you, why the order changes or why it's $(ab)^T=b^Ta^T$ rather than $(ab)=b^Ta^T$? $\endgroup$ – Alfonso Fernandez May 12 '13 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ At the moment only unclarity to me is what @Samuel wrote. I don't get it. $\endgroup$ – 71GA May 12 '13 at 22:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ By the way $\vec{b} \cdot \vec{a}$ is defined. It's a $3 \times 3$ matrix called the outer product of the two vectors. $\endgroup$ – Sammy Black May 13 '13 at 0:00

A vector should always be a column vector. If you want to talk about a "row vector", you should write it as the transpose of some vector, or as a matrix with just one row.

I will add that, technically, the scalar product can not be written as a matrix product the way you are doing it. If $u,v$ are vectors, then the matrix product $u^T v$ is a $1\times 1$-matrix, whereas the scalar product $u\cdot v$ is a scalar. It is common to ignore this and consider them the same, but one should sometimes be careful when using this, for example when one wants to multiply the scalar product with a matrix.

Added: You cannot say that $a$ is a vector and then write $a=(4,5,6)$ as a row matrix. You can however say that $a$ is a $1\times 3$-matrix $(4,5,6)$, or that $a$ is a vector and $a^T=(4,5,6)$ (and in the latter case, $a$ is a column vector). Let us suppose that you defined the matrices $a=(4,5,6)$ and $b=\begin{pmatrix}1\\2\\3\end{pmatrix}$. Now, the matrix product $a\cdot b$ is equal to the $1\times 1$-matrix $[32]$, not the number 32, which is the scalar product of the vectors $\begin{pmatrix}4\\5\\6\end{pmatrix}$ and $\begin{pmatrix}1\\2\\3\end{pmatrix}$. Likewise, the matrix product $b^T\cdot a^T$ is equal to the $1\times 1$-matrix $[32]$. Then we can conclude that $a\cdot b=b^T\cdot a^T$ (note that you made a typo in your post and wrote $a^T\cdot b^T$ for the right-hand-side). This is consistent with Wikipedia, which states that $(a\cdot b)^T=b^T\cdot a^T$. However, your typo is also correct in this particular case, namely $(a\cdot b)^T=a^T\cdot b^T$, but this is only because both matrices are $1\times 1$-matrices, so they are equal to their own transposes.

Added after the edit: You get the identity $a^T\cdot b=b^T\cdot a$. This equation is not true for general matrices $a,b$, so you will not find it on Wikipedia. What is generally true, however, is the identity $(a^T\cdot b)^T=b^T\cdot a$. The reason your identity is true is because both matrices are $1\times 1$-matrices, and the transpose of a $1\times 1$-matrix does not change the matrix.

  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand what you are trying to say. @Alfonso Fernandez says i did it ok. Can you please try to explain it on an example? $\endgroup$ – 71GA May 12 '13 at 22:40
  • $\begingroup$ @71GA: I've added a clarification. $\endgroup$ – Samuel May 12 '13 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ Can you check also my edit please. $\endgroup$ – 71GA May 12 '13 at 22:55
  • $\begingroup$ Ok so what you wanted is to warn me that in TEXT i have to be careful how to talk about vectors and matrix. If i have for example: $$a=\begin{pmatrix}1&2&3\end{pmatrix}\qquad \vec{b}=\begin{pmatrix}4\\5\\6\end{pmatrix}$$ i can say in text that $b$ is a vector, but i can't say this for $a$ which is only a matrix $1\times 3$. But i can read in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_multiplication that: "Treating the rows and columns in each matrix as row and column vectors respectively, this entry is also their vector dot product"? $\endgroup$ – 71GA May 12 '13 at 23:30
  • $\begingroup$ @71GA: When taking scalar products, it doesn't matter if you write your vectors as row vectors or column vectors, but as soon as you use matrix multiplication, everything you call a vector has to be a column vector to avoid matrix multiplications becoming undefined due to mismatched dimensions. $\endgroup$ – Samuel May 12 '13 at 23:36

Vectors have a notation, they can be written only as a column matrix. In case of multiplying two such vectors, matrix multiplication is not defined as both would be 3x1 matrices.

\begin{gather} \vec{u} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} u_1 \\ u_2 \\ u_3 \\ \end{array} \right] & \vec{v} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} v_1 \\ v_2 \\ v_3 \\ \end{array} \right] \end{gather}

Then the following is not defined -

\begin{gather} \vec{u}\cdot \vec{v} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} u_1 \\ u_2 \\ u_3 \\ \end{array} \right] \cdot \left[ \begin{array}{c} v_1 \\ v_2 \\ v_3 \\ \end{array} \right] \end{gather}

A dyadic multiplication is defined, which gives rise to a column or a row matrix. It is as follows:
\begin{gather} \vec{u} \otimes \vec{v} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} u_1\cdot v_1 & u_1 \cdot v_2 & u_1 \cdot v_3\\ u_2\cdot v_1 & u_2 \cdot v_2 & u_2 \cdot v_3\\ u_3\cdot v_1 & u_3 \cdot v_2 & u_3 \cdot v_3\\ \end{array} \right] \end{gather}

It is therefore \begin{gather} \vec{u} \otimes \vec{v} = (\vec{v} \otimes \vec{u})^T \end{gather}

In terms of vector inner product same may be written as \begin{gather} \vec{u} \otimes \vec{v} = \vec{u} \cdot \vec{v}^T \end{gather}


Valid vector inner product is therefore, \begin{gather} \vec{u}\cdot \vec{v} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} u_1 \\ u_2 \\ u_3 \\ \end{array} \right] \cdot \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} v_1 & v_2 & v_3 \\ \end{array} \right] \end{gather}


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.