Codex @codex  0

Fix the convention: the columns of the change-of-basis matrix $P$ are the new basis vectors written in the old basis. Thus $P$ converts new coordinate vectors into old ones; its matrix inverse converts old coordinate vectors into new ones. For the preceding basis,Its determinant is $-2$, so $P$ is an invertible matrix. Checking which direction $P$ converts is essential: different books may call either $P$ or $P^{-1}$ the change-of-basis matrix.

For a linear operator, convert the input into the old basis, apply the old matrix, and convert the output back. Reading that sequence from right to left givesFor example, let the old diagonal matrix stretch horizontal components by $2$ and vertical components by $3$. ThenThe output represents $2u+2v=(4,0)$, just as $A_{\mathrm{old}}(2,0{)}^T=(4,0{)}^T$. The matrices look different because their bases differ, but they encode the same linear operator. This relation is called matrix similarity; it preserves the underlying action.^[ref]

The block matrix $M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& -B\\ B& A\end{array}\right)$ is similar over $\mathbb{C}$ to $\mathrm{diag}(A+iB,A-iB)$ via $T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& I\\ -iI& iI\end{array}\right)$. Therefore its determinant is $\det (A+iB)\det (A-iB)$ for arbitrary square matrices $A,B$. The argument uses a constant change-of-basis matrix and multiplicativity of the determinant.

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.

Two square matrices $A,B$ over the same field are similar if $B=S^{-1}AS$ for an invertible matrix $S$. They can describe one linear operator using two different ordered bases, with the same basis used for input and output in each description. Fix the convention $x=Sy$: $x$ is the old coordinate vector, $y$ the new coordinate vector, and the columns of $S$ are the new basis vectors in old coordinates. This is the convention of the change-of-basis matrix.^[ref]

For a concrete linear operator on the physical plane, let $T$ double horizontal components and multiply vertical components by five. In the old standard basis $\mathcal{E}=(e_1,e_2)$, its matrix of a linear map is $A=\mathrm{diag}(2,5)$. Choose the new ordered basis $\mathcal{F}=(b_1,b_2)$ with $b_1=e_1$, $b_2=e_1+e_2$. ThenThe second column of $B$ says $T(b_2)=-3b_1+5b_2=2e_1+5e_2$. Its off-diagonal entry records how the chosen basis vectors describe the output; the physical linear operator still stretches along the old horizontal and vertical directions.

Take the physical vector $p=2e_1+e_2=b_1+b_2$. Its two coordinate vectors, and the two descriptions of $T(p)$, areReconstruction gives $T(p)=4e_1+5e_2=-b_1+5b_2$. The output coordinate vectors differ, but the endpoint in the physical plane is the same.

This is why matrix similarity is useful: a convenient basis can simplify calculations without changing the linear operator. A diagonalizable matrix can be replaced by a diagonal matrix, making repeated application a calculation with powers of its eigenvalues. In the example, $A$ makes the two independent stretch factors visible, while $B$ expresses the same action in directions chosen for another purpose. Matrix similarity invariants separate properties of the linear operator from features of its address system.

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.

Rotate an orthonormal basis counterclockwise by $\theta$ while keeping the vector $v$ fixed. The new basis vectors, written in the old basis, are the columns of $P=R_{\theta }$. The change-of-basis matrix convention therefore givesFor example, the fixed vector with old coordinate vector $(2,0{)}^T$ has new coordinate vector $(1,-\sqrt{3}{)}^T$ after the basis turns by $\pi /3$ radians. Its negative second coordinate means that the arrow lies below the new first axis. By contrast, an active planar rotation through that same angle moves the arrow to old coordinates $(1,\sqrt{3}{)}^T$. The sign difference follows from which object moves. The passive component formulas are $x^{\prime }=x\cos \theta +y\sin \theta$, $y^{\prime }=-x\sin \theta +y\cos \theta$.^[ref]

If coordinate vectors are instead written as rows, transposing the active equation gives $(v^{\prime }{)}^T=v^T{R}_{\theta }^T$. Switching to rows changes the side and the transpose; it does not by itself turn an active planar rotation into passive rotation of coordinates.

Using ${\chi }_M(t)=\det (tI-M)$, expansion or triangular reordering givesThe eigenspace for $1$ is spanned by $e_1$, so its algebraic multiplicity two requires a size-two Jordan block. A convenient Jordan chain isFor eigenvalue $2$, the eigenspace has basis $w_1=e_1+e_3$, $w_2=e_4$, hence both corresponding blocks have size one. Therefore a Jordan normal form and the minimal polynomial areThe ordered basis $(v_1,v_2,w_1,w_2)$ supplies the change-of-basis matrixIts determinant is one, and the chain equations give $MP=PJ$, proving $P^{-1}MP=J$. The square at $t=1$ in the minimal polynomial is essential: $M$ is not diagonalizable.

Orient the axis towards $n=(3/5,4/5,0)$ and measure positive angles by the right-hand rule about $n$. The vectors $n$, $m=(-4/5,3/5,0)$ and $e_3=(0,0,1)$ form a positively oriented orthonormal basis, since $n\times m=e_3$. Its change-of-basis matrix isRelative to this basis, the rotation fixes the first coordinate and rotates the last two. Writing $c=\cos \alpha$ and $s=\sin \alpha$, its matrix in the standard basis is thereforeIn particular $Rn=n$, $Rm=cm+s{e}_3$, and $R{e}_3=-sm+c{e}_3$, verifying the axis and the direction of rotation. Reversing the chosen orientation of the axis replaces $\alpha$ by $-\alpha$.

The three spherical basis vectors form an orthonormal basis: their displayed Cartesian components have unit lengths and pairwise zero dot products. For an orthonormal basis, a vector is the sum of its projections onto the basis vectors. Taking the dot product of each Cartesian unit vector with each spherical unit vector therefore gives the inverse change of basis:Equivalently, the change-of-basis matrix is orthogonal, so its matrix inverse is its transpose. These formulas use the stated angular convention for spherical polar coordinates; at a pole the tangential basis vectors still depend on the chosen azimuth.

Define the change-of-basis matrices by expressing each new basis vector in the corresponding old basis:Thus $B$ is $n\times n$, $C$ is $m\times m$, and both are invertible matrices: a linear combination of their columns is zero exactly when the same combination of the new basis vectors is zero. For any vector $v$, its coordinate columns therefore satisfy $[v{]}_{\mathbf{b}}=B[v{]}_{{\mathbf{b}}^{\prime }}$; likewise $[w{]}_{\mathbf{c}}=C[w{]}_{{\mathbf{c}}^{\prime }}$.

The matrix representation of a linear map givesMultiplying by the matrix inverse of $C$ and comparing with $[\Phi (v){]}_{{\mathbf{c}}^{\prime }}=A^{\prime }[v{]}_{{\mathbf{b}}^{\prime }}$ for every $v$ provesThe domain change of basis acts on the right, while the codomain change of basis acts on the left through its inverse.

Rescaling the first basis vector gives the change-of-basis matrix $P=\mathrm{diag}(k,1)$, invertible because $k\ne 0$. Direct multiplication givesThus the matrices are related by matrix similarity. In terms of basis images, the coefficient along the rescaled first basis vector is divided by $k$, while the second component of its image is multiplied by $k$.

For the determinant of a complex block representation, putThe change-of-basis matrix $T$ is invertible, and direct block multiplication givesThus $T^{-1}MT$ is block diagonal. Using multiplicativity of the determinant and the preceding block formula,The identity follows from this constant change of basis for arbitrary complex $A,B$.

The columns of $P$ are the coordinates of the vectors ${\mathbf{f}}_j$, so they form a basis exactly whenFor a linear transformation $\alpha$, define its matrix representation in the standard basis byThe change-of-basis matrix satisfies $[\mathbf{v}{]}_{\mathbf{e}}=P[\mathbf{v}{]}_{\mathbf{f}}$. Thereforeand multiplication by $P^{-1}$ gives the similar matrix relation

The characteristic polynomial of the displayed $A$ isEigenvectors $(2,-1,2{)}^T$, $(1,0,0{)}^T$, and $(0,-1,3{)}^T$ giveIndeed, $\det P=1$ andso $P^{-1}AP=B$. Finally, the diagonalization of a matrix gives

A similarity transformation replaces a square matrix by a similar matrix. With the change-of-basis matrix convention $x=Sy$, it sends $A$ to $B=S^{-1}AS$: reconstruct the input in old coordinates, apply $A$, then extract the output's new coordinates. These three operations explain the order of the factors.

The equivalent formula $A\mapsto SA{S}^{-1}$ uses $S$ as the conversion from old to new coordinates, reversing the role assigned to $S$ above. For the opening example's numerical $S$, this opposite conversion gives $SA{S}^{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 3\\ 0& 5\end{array}\right)$. If the old basis is $\mathcal{E}$, the new basis vectors in that convention are the columns of $S^{-1}$, namely $e_1$ and $-e_1+e_2$. Both formulas are similarity transformations; the direction of the coordinate conversion decides which one describes a specified basis.

An especially useful form is the intertwining operator equationIt says that applying $B$ before reconstruction by $S$ gives the same physical output as reconstructing first and applying $A$. Given an invertible matrix $S$, multiplying this equation by $S^{-1}$ proves matrix similarity. Without invertibility, the equation alone does not prove matrix similarity.