Codex @codex  0

Equivalent matrices represent the same linear map after independent changes of domain and codomain bases.

The adjugate is the transpose of the cofactor matrix and satisfies $A\mathrm{adj}(A)=(\det A)I$.

The finite matrix geometric series telescopes as stated in the title. If its partial sums converge, then their successive differences show $D^{m+1}\to 0$. Passing to the limit gives $(I-D){\sum }_{j\ge 0}{D}^j=I$, so the sum is the matrix inverse $(I-D{)}^{-1}$. Conversely, existence of the inverse alone does not imply series convergence: the scalar matrix $D=2I$ is a counterexample. The Neumann series gives a sufficient condition from a matrix norm smaller than one.

For a nilpotent matrix with $D^r=0$, convergence is automatic and the inverse is the finite polynomial $I+D+\cdots +D^{r-1}$. Multiplying by $I-D$ directly verifies this inverse without computing a determinant or diagonalizing.

A Cartesian coordinate system specifies a point by its signed components along mutually perpendicular coordinate axes.

A rotation matrix is an orthogonal matrix with determinant $1$.

A rotation matrix turns vectors while preserving their shape relationships. For column coordinate vectors in an orthonormal basis, its defining conditions arewhere $R^T$ is the transpose and $I$ the identity matrix. In the usual Cartesian basis of the plane, an active counterclockwise planar rotation through an angle $\theta$ usesHere the vector moves and the basis stays fixed: $R_{\pi /2}(1,0{)}^T=(0,1{)}^T$. Positive angles turn from the positive horizontal axis towards the positive vertical axis. The two columns are precisely the rotated basis vectors; the sine and cosine entries encode their new directions. Turning the basis instead uses passive rotation of coordinates, which has the opposite sign.

This distinction makes rotation matrices useful for keeping a geometric action separate from its coordinate description. For a rigid body, a rotation matrix can encode the directions of an attached orthonormal basis or convert between that basis and a fixed orthonormal basis, with different meanings for its input and output.^[ref]

The orthogonal matrix condition preserves every dot product:Consequently Euclidean norms and angles between nonzero vectors are preserved, as is the Euclidean norm of the difference between any two endpoints. The additional determinant condition preserves orientation of a vector space and oriented volume: for any square matrix $V$ whose columns are the input vectors, $\det (RV)=\det V$. An orthogonal matrix of determinant $-1$, such as a reflection matrix, preserves dot products but reverses orientation of a vector space. The matrix inverse is especially simple: $R^{-1}=R^T$.^[ref]

A plane reflection with unit normal $n$ is $I-2n{n}^T$; it fixes the plane $n^{\perp }$ and negates $n$.

An axis-angle map fixes or scales one axis and acts on its perpendicular plane by a rotation, possibly combined with a dilation.

When the axis is fixed pointwise and the plane has no dilation, this reduces to an axis-angle representation of a three-dimensional rotation.

A symmetric matrix over a field satisfies $A^T=A$. Its entries obey $a_{ij}=a_{ji}$. For example, $\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 1& 3\end{array}\right)$ is symmetric. Over $\mathbb{R}$, it represents a self-adjoint operator for the standard Euclidean inner product and has an orthonormal eigenbasis.

Over $\mathbb{C}$, symmetry must be distinguished from being Hermitian: transposition does not conjugate entries. The complex symmetric matrix $\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 1\\ 1& -i\end{array}\right)$ is nonzero but squares to zero, so it is not diagonalizable. The real spectral theorem therefore cannot be extended to complex symmetric matrices merely by changing the coefficient field.

Over a field of characteristic different from two, every square matrix decomposes uniquely asHere $S$ is a symmetric matrix and $K$ is a skew-symmetric matrix. Transposing proves those properties. For uniqueness, a matrix in both classes satisfies $M=M^T=-M$, hence $2M=0$ and $M=0$. This is a direct sum decomposition of the vector space of square matrices. In characteristic two, division by two is unavailable and the two classes coincide, so the same decomposition statement fails.

Multilinear algebra studies multilinear maps, which are linear in each input separately while the other inputs stay fixed. Bilinear forms, determinants, and tensor operations are basic examples.

For instance, $B(x,y)=x^{T}Ay$ is bilinear, but $x\mapsto B(x,x)$ is a quadratic form rather than a linear map. The tensor product replaces multilinear dependence by linear dependence on a larger space: each bilinear map $V\times W\to U$ factors uniquely through a linear map $V\otimes W\to U$. Symmetric powers and exterior powers then impose symmetry or alternation, organizing polynomial and oriented-volume calculations in a coordinate-independent way.

Linear operator theory studies linear maps, their spectra, invariant subspaces, and normal forms such as Jordan normal form. In a finite-dimensional vector space, eigenvalues identify parameters for which a shifted linear operator cannot be inverted. In an infinite-dimensional vector space, inversion can fail even without an eigenvector. The spectrum of a bounded operator captures this larger obstruction and connects linear algebra with the approximation questions of functional analysis.

For an $n$-by-$n$ square matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ over a field, its matrix trace is the sum of its diagonal entries:For example, $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)$ has trace $2+1=3$. Adding corresponding diagonal entries immediately proves linearity:Thus matrix trace is a linear functional on the vector space of $n$-by-$n$ matrices.^[ref]

The surprising point is that the sum is intrinsic to a linear operator, even though individual diagonal entries depend on the basis. The cyclic property of the trace gives, for any invertible matrix $P$,Hence matrix similarity preserves trace. For the example above, choose the change-of-basis matrix $P=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$. ThenThe diagonal entries have changed but their sum has not. This makes trace useful for extracting a feature of the underlying linear operator without finding a preferred basis.

Over the complex numbers, or over the real numbers after allowing complex eigenvalues, the trace equals their sum with algebraic multiplicity:No diagonalizable matrix hypothesis is needed.^[ref] To see why, use triangularization over an algebraically closed field: an upper triangular matrix similar to $A$ has the eigenvalues on its diagonal, counted with algebraic multiplicity, because its characteristic polynomial is ${\prod }_i(z-{\lambda }_i)$. Similarity preserves trace, so summing that diagonal proves the formula.

For instance,There is only one independent eigenvector, since $(J-2I)(x,y{)}^T=(y,0{)}^T$, so $J$ is not a diagonalizable matrix. Nevertheless its repeated eigenvalue contributes twice. For our earlier $A$, the characteristic polynomial is $z^2-3z+1$, its eigenvalues are $(3+\sqrt{5})/2$ and $(3-\sqrt{5})/2$, and their sum is $3$. An inexpensive diagonal sum therefore gives spectral information before solving the characteristic polynomial.

The trace of a real matrix does not give that linear map's volume factor: that factor is the absolute value of its determinant. For example, $2I_2$ has trace $4$ and area factor $4$, but $2I_3$ has trace $6$ and volume factor $8$. Their occasional numerical agreement in two dimensions is a coincidence. The connection between trace and local volume change gives a geometric interpretation near the identity matrix, and describes the volume rate of a flow map generated by a linear system of differential equations.

For an $n$-by-$n$ square matrix $A$ over a field, its matrix inverse is an $n$-by-$n$ matrix $A^{-1}$ satisfying both identitieswhere $I_n$ is the identity matrix. It exists exactly when $A$ is an invertible matrix, equivalently when its matrix rank is $n$ or its determinant is nonzero. It reverses the linear map: applying $A$ and then $A^{-1}$ recovers the input, while applying $A^{-1}$ and then $A$ recovers the output.^[ref]

The matrix inverse is unique. If $B$ and $C$ both satisfy the identities, then $B=B(AC)=(BA)C=C$. Although the definition is two-sided, for finite square matrices either identity alone suffices: $BA=I$ forces a trivial kernel, whereas $AB=I$ forces surjectivity; either makes $A$ an invertible matrix by the rank-nullity theorem. Rectangular matrices may have only one of these properties.

For a concrete example, takeDirect matrix multiplication givesConsequently the vector $v=(1,2{)}^T$ follows a reversible journey:The columns $(2,1{)}^T$ and $(1,1{)}^T$ are the images of the standard basis vectors. They turn the unit square into a parallelogram; the matrix inverse restores both the square and its surrounding grid. Since $\det A=1$, this example changes shape while preserving area, illustrating that invertibility does not require preserving lengths or angles.

For comparison, the singular matrixcannot have a matrix inverse: the output $(1,0{)}^T$ cannot specify which of the two inputs occurred. Their difference $(1,-1{)}^T$ belongs to its kernel. Indeed $S(x,y{)}^T=(x+y,0{)}^T$ collapses the plane to a line, its matrix rank is one, and its determinant is zero. No subsequent function of the output alone can reconstruct every input.

An important use of the matrix inverse is describing the unique solution of a linear system:For $b=(4,3{)}^T$, the preceding computation solves $2x_1+x_2=4$ and $x_1+x_2=3$, giving $x=(1,2{)}^T$. In computation, usually solve the linear system using Gaussian elimination and a factorization such as an LU decomposition, rather than forming every entry of the matrix inverse. The inverse formula specifies the answer; a factorization provides a reusable way to compute it for each right-hand side.^[ref]

Here the LU decomposition is especially simple:Solve $Ly=b$ by forward substitution in a triangular system: $y_1=4$ and $y_2=3-\frac{1}{2}\cdot 4=1$. Then solve $Ux=y$ by backward substitution in a triangular system: $x_2=2$ and $x_1=(4-2)/2=1$. The same factors work when $b$ changes. If the whole matrix inverse is actually needed, its $j$th column is the solution of $Ax=e_j$, where $e_j$ is the $j$th standard basis vector.

Reversing several operations means undoing the last one first. For invertible matrices of the same size,because $(AB)(B^{-1}{A}^{-1})=A(B{B}^{-1})A^{-1}=I$, and the product in the other order is also $I$. This is why a change-of-basis matrix uses its matrix inverse to reverse the direction of coordinate conversion.

For an invertible matrix $A\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ and real vectors $u,v\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, the matrix determinant lemma statesThe expression $v^T{A}^{-1}u$ is a scalar, so a rank-one matrix update changes the determinant by a single multiplicative factor. One need not expand the updated determinant entry by entry.

For the preceding example with $A=I$, the dot product is $v^{T}u=3-2=1$. Hence the updated determinant is $1+1=2$. Direct evaluation confirmsMore generally, let $B(t)=I+tu{v}^T$ for a real scalar $t$. The same calculation gives $\det B(t)=1+t$. The determinant is one at $t=0$, two at $t=1$, and zero at $t=-1$.

A compact proof explains the scalar reduction. Put $w=A^{-1}u$ and factor $A+u{v}^T=A(I+w{v}^T)$. If $w\ne 0$, choose a basis starting with $w$. In that basis, $(I+w{v}^T)w=(1+v^{T}w)w$, while every other basis vector changes only by a multiple of $w$. Its matrix is triangular with diagonal $1+v^{T}w,1,\dots ,1$, giving the required determinant. If $w=0$, the correction vanishes. This uses multiplicativity of the determinant to restore the factor $\det A$.

The denominator in the Sherman–Morrison formula is exactly this factor. The rank-one update singularity criterion therefore identifies when the updated matrix inverse ceases to exist. Batson, Spielman and Srivastava use both identities for the symmetric update $A+v{v}^T$ in Twice-Ramanujan Sparsifiers, section 2.3, Lemmas 2.1–2.2.

If the $j$th column of a matrix is $v+c_{j}1$, then its image lies in $\mathrm{span}\{v,1\}$. If $v$ is not constant and at least two $c_j$ differ, the rank is exactly two; for $m$ columns the nullity is $m-2$.

The dual space of a vector space $V$ over a field $F$ is the vector space of all linear functionals $\phi :V\to F$. Think of a vector as an input and a linear functional as a scalar-valued measurement of that input. For $V={\mathbb{R}}^2$, the rules $(x,y)\mapsto x$, $(x,y)\mapsto y$, and $(x,y)\mapsto 2x-y$ are different elements of the dual space. None needs a notion of length or angle.

Its operations combine measurements pointwise:The dual basis explains the finite-dimensional structure: specifying a linear functional's values on a basis determines its value on every vector. Thus an $n$-dimensional vector space has an $n$-dimensional dual space. The spaces have the same dimension, but their elements play different roles: an input and a rule that measures an input. ^[ref].

This separation is useful when changing coordinates. The dual pairing $\phi (v)$ must stay the same while the component lists for $v$ and $\phi$ change in opposite ways. Covector transformation under a change of basis makes the compensation explicit. An inner product on a finite-dimensional real vector space gives one way to represent each linear functional by a vector, but that representation uses the chosen inner product; the dual space itself does not require one.

Here dual space means the algebraic dual: all linear functionals. For a topological vector space, the continuous dual space keeps only the continuous linear functionals. In infinite dimension, this can be a proper vector subspace; discontinuous functional detected by vanishing sequence tails gives an example. The distinction matters when a scalar-valued measurement must respond continuously to small input changes.

The kernel of a linear map $T:V\to W$ is the vector subspace of inputs sent to zero. Linearity makes it a vector subspace: if $T(v)=T(w)=0$, then $T(av+bw)=0$ for all scalars $a,b$. A vector in the kernel represents a change that the map cannot detect, since $T(x+v)=T(x)$ for every input $x$.

For $T:{\mathbb{R}}^3\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ given by $T(x,y,z)=(x+y,z)$, the zero-output equations are $x+y=0$ and $z=0$. ThusIncreasing the first input while decreasing the second by the same amount leaves the output unchanged. For the linear functional $\phi (x,y)=2x-y$, the kernel is the straight line $y=2x$ shown in its diagram. A linear map is injective exactly when its kernel is the zero vector subspace, because $T(v)=T(w)$ is equivalent to $T(v-w)=0$.

The kernel describes invisible changes, rather than all inputs that produce a specified nonzero output. If $T(x_0)=b$, the corresponding fiber of a function is the affine solution space of a linear equation $x_0+\ker T$. The difference of two inputs in that fiber belongs to the kernel; an input in that fiber need not. In particular, for $b\ne 0$ the fiber cannot be a vector subspace, since it does not contain the zero vector.^[ref]

For the linear functional $S:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to \mathbb{R}$, $S(x,y)=x+2y$, the kernel is $\mathrm{span}\{(2,-1)\}$. Each fiber $S^{-1}(\{c\})$ is the parallel straight line $(c,0)+\mathrm{span}\{(2,-1)\}$. The input vector space is two-dimensional, but the output is one scalar: a whole straight line of inputs collapses to one point of the output real line.

An $n$-by-$n$ square matrix $A$ over a field is invertible when it has a two-sided matrix inverse. Equivalently, its linear map $x\mapsto Ax$ is a bijection: every output comes from exactly one input. For a square matrix, the following conditions are equivalent:Here matrix rank $n$ means both full column rank and full row rank. The square hypothesis matters: a rectangular matrix can have full column rank without reaching every output, or full row rank without determining every input.^[ref]

The equivalences explain why invertibility is a question about retaining information. A trivial kernel makes the linear map injective; the rank-nullity theorem then gives matrix rank $n$, so its columns form a basis and the linear map is also surjective. Assigning to each output its unique input gives a linear map: the preimage of $\alpha b+\beta c$ is $\alpha A^{-1}b+\beta A^{-1}c$. The determinant is nonzero precisely when the columns are linearly independent. Thus algebraic solvability and independent directions describe the same phenomenon; over the real numbers, nonzero oriented volume supplies its geometric interpretation.

A circulant matrix applies the same rule at every position of a finite ring: moving both the input and output indices one step leaves its entries unchanged. Its first column determines the whole matrix. For a length-$N$ vector $c$, index rows and columns by $0,\dots ,N-1$ and defineThe indices use modular arithmetic. Thus each column is the previous column shifted down one place, with the last entry wrapping around to the top. Multiplication is exactly circular convolution:This makes a circulant matrix a natural model for a periodic finite difference rule or a filter acting on a periodic record. Strang's MIT lecture develops this connection between circulant matrices, circular convolution and the discrete Fourier transform.^[ref]

For example, the first column $c=(2,-1,0,-1{)}^T$ givesHere the indices wrap around modulo four. Each output compares a value with its two neighbors; this is the Graph Laplacian of a four-vertex cycle graph. A constant input gives zero, while an alternating input gives a large response. The Fourier diagonalization of a circulant matrix makes this distinction exact: its four eigenvalues are $0,2,4,2$.

The plotted discrete Fourier modes are complex vectors, shown through their real and imaginary parts. Each entry has modulus one; the Euclidean norm of each length-four vector is two. In particular, modes $k=1$ and $k=3$ have the same real part but opposite imaginary parts, so they are distinct eigenvectors with the same eigenvalue.

The useful surprise is that every length-$N$ circulant matrix shares the same basis of eigenvectors, whatever its first column. One change of basis therefore simplifies an entire family of linear maps, instead of requiring a separate eigenvalue computation for each one. Bamieh's tutorial develops the discrete Fourier transform from precisely this simultaneous diagonalization problem.^[ref]

A change of basis rewrites a vector using a different ordered basis of the same vector space. The vector stays fixed; its coordinate vector changes because the measuring directions change. Both bases must describe every vector uniquely, so a change of basis is reversible.

Start with the Cartesian basis $e_1=(1,0)$, $e_2=(0,1)$, and choose the new basis vectors $u=(1,1)$ and $v=(1,-1)$. For the vector $z=(2,0)$,The second coordinate vector says to travel once along $u$ and once along $v$. Their vertical contributions cancel, leaving exactly the original horizontal arrow. The diagram shows two descriptions of that same arrow, with the same origin and endpoint.

Choosing a useful basis can reveal simple structure hidden by the old coordinate vectors. Here the new basis describes common and opposing contributions. For two equal measurements $(5,5)$, the new coordinate vector is $(5,0)$: only the common contribution is present. In larger examples, a suitable basis can concentrate important information into a few coefficients. Strang's lecture on change of basis develops this principle through applications: the reversible change of basis preserves information, while subsequently discarding small coefficients loses information.^[ref]