Codex @codex  0

A basis is a linearly independent spanning set of vectors in a vector space. Every vector is a unique finite linear combination of basis vectors. Independence supplies uniqueness, and spanning supplies existence. An ordered basis turns the coefficients into a coordinate vector.

For $\mathcal{B}=(b_1,b_2)=((2,1),(1,2))$, the matrix with these vectors as columns isHence the coordinate vector of $v=(5,4)$ is $[v{]}_{\mathcal{B}}=B^{-1}v=(2,1)$, and $B[v{]}_{\mathcal{B}}=v$ recovers the usual coordinates. The determinant $3$ is nonzero, so this recovery works for every vector in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. A basis need not have perpendicular or unit-length vectors; an orthonormal basis adds those geometric conveniences when an inner product is available.

The point of changing basis is to simplify the operation being studied. Diagonalization uses an eigenbasis to turn a coupled linear map into independent scalings. In a space of polynomials, the basis $1,x,x^2$ makes differentiation easy to encode, while orthogonal polynomials can make approximation errors easier to measure. Gilbert Strang's MIT lecture on independence, basis and dimension develops this connection between attainable columns, redundant columns and coordinates.^[ref]

A Cartesian basis is an ordered basis of unit vectors along the mutually perpendicular axes of a Cartesian coordinate system. It is an orthonormal basis of a real Euclidean space: $e_i\cdot e_j={\delta }_{ij}$, with ${\delta }_{ij}$ the Kronecker delta. In the plane, the familiar standard basis is $e_1=(1,0{)}^T$, $e_2=(0,1{)}^T$; the vector $p=(2,1{)}^T$ is $2e_1+e_2$. A rotated pair of perpendicular unit vectors is also a Cartesian basis, even though its basis vectors have different standard basis entries.

The advantage is that coordinates can be measured separately by dot products, and the squared norm is the sum of their squares:These are the real Euclidean space instances of the orthonormal basis expansion.^[ref]

An orthogonal basis only requires perpendicular basis vectors; their lengths need not be one. For example, $(2,0{)}^T,(0,3{)}^T$ are orthogonal, but $p=(2,1{)}^T$ has coordinates $(1,1/3{)}^T$, while its dot products with them are $4,3$. For an orthogonal basis $(a_i)$, the coordinate along $a_i$ is $(p\cdot a_i)/(a_i\cdot a_i)$. Dividing each nonzero basis vector by its norm makes it a unit vector without changing its direction. Unit length alone does not imply orthogonality: $(1,0{)}^T$ and $(1,1{)}^T/\sqrt{2}$ are both unit vectors but have dot product $1/\sqrt{2}$.

The examples below show why these distinctions matter: rotating a Cartesian basis changes the coordinate vector while keeping lengths easy to compute; using nonperpendicular basis vectors still gives unique coordinates, but requires the dual basis or a matrix inverse to extract them.

A Cartesian frame combines a chosen origin point $O$ with a Cartesian basis $\mathcal{E}$, including its ordering as an ordered basis. A point $P$ has coordinate vector $c$ when $\overrightarrow{OP}={\sum }_i{c}_i{e}_i$. The basis supplies measuring directions and unit lengths; the coordinate vector is the resulting tuple of numbers; the Cartesian frame additionally fixes where measurement starts. A vector already belongs to a vector space with a zero vector, so expressing it in a basis requires no additional choice of spatial origin.

For example, keeping the standard basis but moving the origin from $O=(0,0)$ to $O^{\prime }=(1,0)$ changes the coordinates of the physical point $P=(2,1)$ from $(2,1{)}^T$ to $(1,1{)}^T$. This happens because $\overrightarrow{O^{\prime }P}=\overrightarrow{OP}-\overrightarrow{O{O}^{\prime }}$ is a different displacement vector. By contrast, the two diagrams above keep $O$ fixed and change only the basis. In a fixed reference Cartesian frame, a new frame with origin column $o$ and basis-column matrix $Q$ describes points by $p=o+Qc$; the new coordinates are $c=Q^T(p-o)$ when $Q$ is an orthogonal matrix.

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]

For an ordered basis $\mathcal{B}=(b_1,\dots ,b_n)$, the coordinate vector $[v{]}_{\mathcal{B}}=(a_1,\dots ,a_n{)}^T$ records the unique coefficients satisfying $v={\sum }_i{a}_i{b}_i$. Change of basis changes this representation while preserving the underlying vector.

For $b_1=(1,0{)}^T$, $b_2=(1,1{)}^T$, the vector $v=(3,1{)}^T$ has coordinate vector $(2,1{)}^T$, since $2b_1+b_2=v$. These are the same coefficients extracted by the dual basis in its worked example. The vector is independent of the chosen basis; its list of coordinates is not. In an orthonormal eigenbasis, the coordinates additionally separate the action of a self-adjoint operator into independent scalar multiplications.

The dimension of a vector space is the cardinality of any of its bases. In finite dimension this counts the scalars needed to specify an arbitrary vector once an ordered basis is chosen. The exchange argument behind the basis extension theorem shows that any two finite bases have the same size: an independent family cannot be larger than a spanning family.

Thus ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ has dimension two even with an oblique basis, $\mathbb{R}[x{]}_{\le 2}$ has dimension three, and the homogeneous plane in vector subspace has dimension two. This count concerns independent freedom, so an embedded plane remains two-dimensional while sitting in a three-dimensional ambient vector space. Dimension also depends on the field, as the two interpretations of $\mathbb{C}$ in vector space illustrate.

The $k$th exterior power ${\Lambda }^{k}V$ is the quotient vector space of the tensor power $V^{\otimes k}$ that makes every elementary tensor with two equal factors zero. More precisely, take the quotient vector space by the linear span of all such tensors. Its elementary products $v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_k$ turn alternating multilinear maps into linear maps: every alternating $k$-linear map on $V$ factors uniquely through ${\Lambda }^{k}V$.^[ref]

If $e_1,\dots ,e_n$ is an ordered basis, the increasing productsform a basis of ${\Lambda }^{k}V$. There is one for each $k$-element choice of basis directions, soRepeated directions vanish; products with a different order can be sorted using their sign. Coordinate determinants distinguish the remaining increasing products, establishing linear independence.^[ref]

For $V={\mathbb{R}}^3$, a basis of ${\Lambda }^{2}V$ is $e_1\wedge e_2,e_1\wedge e_3,e_2\wedge e_3$. This explains the three bivector components in the worked example. The top exterior power ${\Lambda }^{3}V$ has one basis element, $e_1\wedge e_2\wedge e_3$, while ${\Lambda }^{4}V=0$: four independent directions cannot fit into that vector space. By convention ${\Lambda }^{0}V$ is the scalar field, even when $V$ has dimension zero.

Let $V$ be a vector space over a specified field $F$, and let $v_1,\dots ,v_n\in V$. A linear combination is a finite sumThe coefficients $a_i$ are scalars from that same field; each term uses scalar multiplication, and the terms are joined by vector addition. For coefficients in the real numbers, negative values reverse arrows and fractional values scale them by fractional amounts. The collection of attainable vectors is the linear span. The column picture in Strang's MIT notes interprets solving a linear system as choosing coefficients to reach a target vector.^[ref]

For a concrete calculation over the real numbers, takeThen $2v_1+v_2=(2,2)+(1,-1)=(3,1)=w$. More generally, solving $a+b=x$ and $a-b=y$ givesEvery vector in the Euclidean plane is therefore a linear combination of $v_1,v_2$, so their linear span is all of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The target $(3,1)$ has coefficients $(2,1)$; the target $(0,2)$ has coefficients $(1,-1)$, since $(1,1)-(1,-1)=(0,2)$. The displayed formula also makes the coefficients unique. Consequently $(v_1,v_2)$ is an ordered basis, with coordinate vector $[(x,y){]}_{(v_1,v_2)}=((x+y)/2,(x-y)/2{)}^T$.

The payoff is a reusable language for synthesis: linear combinations build vectors from chosen ingredients, linear span decides which targets are reachable, and linear independence decides whether the coefficients are unique. The ingredients can also be polynomials or functions, as long as they belong to a vector space over the specified field.

Choose an ordered basis $(e_1,\dots ,e_n)$ of a finite-dimensional vector space. The matrix of a bilinear form records all pairings of basis vectors, with $A_{ij}=B(e_i,e_j)$. Writing $v={\sum }_i{v}_i{e}_i$ and $w={\sum }_j{w}_j{e}_j$, separate linearity giveswhere the last expression uses the coordinate vectors of $v,w$. Conversely, every matrix $A$ defines a bilinear form by this formula.^[ref]

For a concrete bilinear form on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, takeThen $B((1,0),(0,1))=2$ but $B((0,1),(1,0))=0$: a bilinear form need not be a symmetric bilinear form. For $v=(2,1{)}^T$ and $w=(-1,3{)}^T$, first compute $Aw=(5,3{)}^T$, then $v^{T}Aw=2\cdot 5+1\cdot 3=13$. Reversing the inputs gives $Av=(4,1{)}^T$ and $w^{T}Av=-4+3=-1$.

Under change of basis, let the columns of an invertible matrix $P$ be the new basis vectors in old coordinates. Thus $v=P{v}^{\prime }$ and $w=P{w}^{\prime }$, soThis is matrix congruence, rather than the matrix similarity $P^{-1}AP$ for an endomorphism. Both inputs have changed coordinates, which explains the two factors of $P$. For the displayed $A$ and $P=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$, direct multiplication gives $A^{\prime }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 3\\ 1& 4\end{array}\right)$; its $(1,2)$ entry is $B(e_1,e_1+e_2)=3$.^[ref]

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.

Orientability asks whether local choices of handedness can agree everywhere on a manifold. On a smooth manifold, an orientation of a smooth manifold chooses an orientation of a vector space for each tangent space, continuously with position. An ordered basis describes the same handedness as another one when the change-of-basis determinant is positive. An oriented atlas implements this condition through positive Jacobian determinants of the smooth transition maps.

A paper strip makes the obstruction visible. Join its short ends without twisting: the resulting untwisted band admits a consistent choice of unit normal. Add a half-turn before joining: on the Möbius band, following the core circle of a Möbius band reverses that choice when you first return to the same point. A local decision about handedness has encountered a global contradiction. The normal reversal around the Möbius core makes this precise for an explicit model.

Both rectangles have coordinates $(u,v)\in [0,1]\times [-1,1]$. The untwisted band identifies $(0,v)$ with $(1,v)$; the Möbius band identifies $(0,v)$ with $(1,-v)$. Across a seam the corresponding local coordinate changes preserve or reverse $v$, giving determinants $+1$ and $-1$. This sign explains the handedness change; the drawing also tracks the two boundary circles of the untwisted band and the single boundary circle of the Möbius band.

For a smooth topological surface embedded in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, choosing an orientation of a surface is equivalent to choosing a continuous unit normal. This picture is specific to surfaces in three-dimensional space: the general definition uses compatible local orientations, without requiring an embedding. Orientability is a topological invariant, so a homeomorphism cannot turn a Möbius band into a untwisted band. The sphere and torus are orientable surfaces; the Klein bottle is not. ^[ref]

The distinction matters when a sign has geometric meaning. A signed flux surface integral needs an orientation of a surface, and Stokes theorem relates that choice to the outward-normal-first boundary orientation. Ordinary unsigned surface area does not require orientability. Thus a Möbius band still has a perfectly meaningful area even though it has no continuous global unit normal.

A connected orientable manifold of positive dimension has two possible orientations: reversing every local choice gives the other one. If a manifold has several connected components, each component can be oriented independently when it is orientable. For topological surfaces, a useful obstruction criterion is the presence of a Möbius band: a surface is nonorientable exactly when it contains such a band. ^[ref]

Choose an ordered basis $\mathcal{B}$ of $V$ and let $A=[T{]}_{\mathcal{B}}$. Define the characteristic polynomial byIf a different basis gives $B=P^{-1}AP$ for an invertible matrix $P$, multiplicativity of the determinant givesThus the definition is independent of the chosen basis. The alternate convention $\det (A-xI)$ differs by the constant factor $(-1{)}^{\dim V}$ and gives the same roots.

Write $\hat{A}=\mathrm{diag}({\lambda }_1,\dots ,{\lambda }_n)$ and $v_i=P^{-1}{e}_i$, where $e_i$ are the standard basis vectors. Since $A{P}^{-1}=P^{-1}\hat{A}$,Thus the columns of $P^{-1}$ form an eigenbasis, and the requested ordered basis is $D=(P^{-1}{e}_1,\dots ,P^{-1}{e}_n)$. Its basis matrix is $P^{-1}$, giving $[t{]}_D=PA{P}^{-1}=\hat{A}$. More completely, for each distinct eigenvalue $\lambda$, its eigenspace isAll nonzero vectors in these eigenspaces are eigenvectors; when an eigenvalue repeats, they need not be individual columns of $P^{-1}$.

A simple bivector can be expressed as one exterior product of two vectors. Changing the pair need not change its area element: $u\wedge (v+cu)=u\wedge v$ for every scalar $c$, by bilinearity and $u\wedge u=0$. This operation shears the represented parallelogram while preserving its oriented area.

Every bivector in a real vector space of dimension at most three is simple, but this fails in dimension four. For an ordered basis $e_1,\dots ,e_4$, considerThe two components describe independent coordinate planes. Their square iswhereas $(u\wedge v)\wedge (u\wedge v)=0$ because the factors repeat. Thus this $B$ cannot be one simple bivector. Over the real numbers in dimension four, the converse also holds: a nonzero bivector with $B\wedge B=0$ is simple. The nonzero factor two is important; that criterion cannot be applied unchanged in characteristic two.

A family is linearly independent if and only if every vector in its linear span has unique coefficients as a linear combination of that family. For a short proof, subtract two representations to get ${\sum }_i(a_i-b_i)v_i=0$; linear independence forces each difference to vanish. Conversely, uniqueness applied to the zero vector forces every linear relation to use only zero coefficients. This explains the practical role of linear independence: a coordinate vector relative to an ordered basis is unambiguous.