Codex @codex  0

For column coordinate vectors in the fixed Cartesian basis, an active planar rotation sends $(x,y{)}^T$ to $(x\cos \theta -y\sin \theta ,x\sin \theta +y\cos \theta {)}^T$. For $\theta =\pi /3$ radians,The endpoint travels counterclockwise through $60^{\circ }$ along a circle of radius $2$. Its Euclidean norm stays $\sqrt{1^2+(\sqrt{3}{)}^2}=2$. The second Cartesian basis direction becomes $R_{\pi /3}(0,1{)}^T=(-\sqrt{3}/2,1/2{)}^T$, whose dot product with $(1,\sqrt{3}{)}^T$ is still zero.

A quick sign check is to look at the first column: $R_{\theta }(1,0{)}^T=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta {)}^T$ must point above the horizontal axis for $0<\theta <\pi$. The columns have unit Euclidean norm and zero dot product, so $R_{\theta }^T{R}_{\theta }=I$; the determinant is ${\cos }^2\theta +{\sin }^2\theta =1$. Finally, the transpose negates the off-diagonal entries, giving $R_{\theta }^T=R_{-\theta }$: turning back reverses the action. This is the same matrix used for passive rotation of coordinates, though that interpretation keeps the vector fixed.

Suppose a linear map between finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces has matrix $A$, and their inner products in the chosen bases are $⟨x,z{⟩}_H=z^{\ast }{G}_{H}x$ and $⟨u,v{⟩}_K=v^{\ast }{G}_{K}u$. The Gram matrices $G_H,G_K$ are positive-definite matrices. Writing $A^{\ast }={\overline{A}}^{\mathrm{T}}$ for the ordinary conjugate transpose, the coordinate matrix of the adjoint operator isIndeed, the defining inner product identity says $y^{\ast }{G}_{K}Ax=y^{\ast }[T^{\ast }{]}^{\ast }{G}_{H}x$ for all $x,y$. Thus simply transposing and conjugating is valid in orthonormal bases, where both Gram matrices are the identity matrix.

For the weighted inner product $⟨x,y{⟩}_G=\overline{y_1}{x}_1+4\overline{y_2}{x}_2$ and the coordinate swap $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$, the adjoint operator has matrix $\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 4\\ 1/4& 0\end{array}\right)$. With $x=(1,0{)}^{\mathrm{T}}$ and $y=(0,1{)}^{\mathrm{T}}$, both inner products equal $4$. The coordinate swap is its own ordinary transpose, but is not self-adjoint in this weighted inner product.

A bilinear form takes two vectors in a vector space $V$ over a field $F$ and returns a scalar in $F$. Its defining property is separate linearity: holding either input fixed gives a linear functional of the other. For scalars $a,b$ and vectors $u,v,w$,This is a scalar-valued bilinear map; the chosen field is part of the definition.^[ref]

Separate linearity does not mean that $B$ is a linear map on the vector space $V\times V$ with componentwise vector addition and scalar multiplication. Over the real numbers, $B(2v,2w)=4B(v,w)$, whereas a linear map on the pair would give $2B(v,w)$. The simplest example is $B(x,y)=xy$ on the one-dimensional vector space $\mathbb{R}$: fixing $y=3$ gives $x\mapsto 3x$, but doubling both $x$ and $y$ quadruples their product.

A bilinear form measures how two inputs interact. The dot product measures alignment; a symmetric bilinear form can describe a quadratic form; an alternating bilinear form can measure signed area. A nondegenerate bilinear form turns each vector into a unique linear functional and so connects geometry with the dual space. The same short definition therefore supports lengths, bilinear orthogonal complements, and symplectic vector spaces, depending on the additional properties imposed.

Over the complex numbers, a bilinear form is linear in both inputs without conjugating either scalar. A Hermitian form instead is a sesquilinear form and conjugates when its inputs are exchanged. For complex matrices, the adjoint $A^{\ast }$ used with Hermitian forms and matrix C-star algebras is the conjugate transpose, whereas a bilinear form uses the ordinary transpose $A^T$. For example, $B(z,w)=zw$ has $B(i,i)=-1$, while the Hermitian form $H(z,w)=z\overline{w}$ has $H(i,i)=1$.^[ref]

Rotate the standard basis through $30^{\circ }$ using the rotation matrix whose columns are the new basis vectors:Here $u\cdot v=0$ and $u\cdot u=v\cdot v=1$, so $Q$ is an orthogonal matrix with $Q^{T}Q=I$, where $T$ denotes transpose and $I$ is the identity matrix. For the same vector $p=(2,1{)}^T$, its coordinate vector in this Cartesian basis isThus $\alpha \approx 2.232$ and $\beta \approx -0.134$: travel forwards along $u$ and a little backwards along $v$ to reconstruct $p=\alpha u+\beta v$. The orthogonal projections onto the two axes give these signed coordinates because the measuring vectors are both perpendicular and of unit length.

The squared norm remainsThis is useful when choosing axes aligned with a geometric feature: the coordinates change but distances and dot products retain the same sum-of-products formula. The two directions of the change of basis must be kept straight: $Q$ reconstructs the vector in old coordinates, $p=Q[p{]}_{\mathcal{U}}$, and $Q^T$ extracts its new coordinates. Applying $Q$ to the old coordinate vector $p$ instead would actively rotate the vector.

A short proof explains both formulas. If $p=Qc$, multiplication by $Q^T$ gives $c=Q^{T}p$. Then $\Vert p{\Vert }^2=c^T{Q}^{T}Qc=c^{T}c$. Perpendicular unit-length columns make the matrix inverse equal the transpose; this is the computational convenience supplied by a Cartesian basis.

For a matrix $A$ over the complex numbers with the standard Hermitian inner product, the linear system $Ax=b$ is solvable exactly whenThe star is the conjugate transpose; for matrices over the real numbers, use the transpose. Necessity follows from $y^{\ast }Ax=(A^{\ast }y{)}^{\ast }x=0$. For sufficiency, $(\mathrm{im}A{)}^{\perp }=\ker A^{\ast }$, and taking the orthogonal complement again recovers $\mathrm{im}A$ in finite dimension. This is the cokernel obstruction expressed as scalar equations. ^[ref]

For $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$, $\ker A^T=\mathrm{span}\{(0,1)\}$, so the single compatibility equation is $b_2=0$. If it holds, the kernel supplies the remaining input freedom; if it fails, changing the input cannot remove the obstruction.

For $T>0$ and the constant matrices over the real numbers in the Kalman rank criterion, the finite-time Controllability Gramian accumulates the influence of all command times. Its column space equals that of the controllability matrix, and $W_T$ is a symmetric positive-definite matrix exactly when the controllability matrix has rank of a matrix $n$. If so, put $\delta =x_1-e^{AT}{x}_0$. Among square-integrable functions steering $x_0$ to $x_1$ at $T$, the commandminimizes ${\int }_0^T\Vert u(t){\Vert }^{2}dt$, with value ${\delta }^T{W}_T^{-1}\delta$. Here $T$ in a matrix superscript denotes transpose. This cost is a squared input norm, not necessarily physical energy, and the optimizing command need not satisfy an amplitude bound. ^[ref]

For the double integrator, $e^{As}B=(s,1{)}^T$, so direct integration givesFor a rest-to-rest distance $d$, $u_{\ast }(t)=6d/T^2-12dt/T^3$ and the minimum squared input norm is $12d^2/T^3$. Compare the two constant commands in the double integrator example, whose cost is $16d^2/T^3$: both attain the target, but the smooth command costs less. At $T=2$, $d=1$, however, $u_{\ast }$ peaks at $3/2$, so it violates $|u|\le 1$ while the two constant commands remain admissible. Controllability, optimal control, and constrained reachability in control theory answer different questions.

The dual lattice of a full-rank Euclidean lattice $\Lambda \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ isHere $⟨x,y⟩$ is the Euclidean inner product. If the columns of an invertible matrix $B$ form a basis of $\Lambda =B{\mathbb{Z}}^n$, thenIndeed, $y$ belongs to the dual lattice exactly when $B^{\mathsf{T}}y\in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$; $B^{-\mathsf{T}}$ denotes the transpose of the matrix inverse. The reciprocal covolume follows by taking the determinant. With the Fourier transform kernel $e^{-2\pi i⟨x,y⟩}$, these are precisely the frequencies of the characters of a real torus: translating $x$ by any $\lambda \in \Lambda$ leaves $e^{2\pi i⟨x,y⟩}$ unchanged. In one dimension, $(h\mathbb{Z}{)}^{\vee }=h^{-1}\mathbb{Z}$ for $h>0$: increasing the spacing in physical space decreases the spacing in frequency space.

A row Gershgorin disc of a square matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ is the closed disk in the complex plane with centre $a_{ii}$ and radius $r_i={\sum }_{j\ne i}|a_{ij}|$. A zero radius gives a single point. The Gershgorin disc theorem places every eigenvalue in the union of these disks. For a Hermitian matrix, the real intervals cut out by the Gershgorin discs bound the eigenvalues, including energy levels when the matrix represents a Hamiltonian operator.

Applying the Gershgorin circle theorem to the transpose $A^T$ gives column Gershgorin discs with the same centres and radii $c_i={\sum }_{j\ne i}|a_{ji}|$. Since $A$ and $A^T$ have the same characteristic polynomial, every eigenvalue lies in the intersection of the row-disc union and the column-disc union. This is an intersection of two unions; one cannot generally replace each row radius by $\min (r_i,c_i)$. An isolated row Gershgorin disc contains exactly one eigenvalue by Gershgorin eigenvalue counting.^[ref]

A Givens rotation eliminates one component of a vector by rotating just two coordinates, preserving its Euclidean norm. For example,The length remains five: elimination moves the component into the retained coordinate rather than discarding it. Applied to a matrix, the same operation mixes two rows; QR decomposition by Givens rotations uses these local operations to build an upper triangular matrix.

For indices $i<j$, the matrix $G_{ij}(c,s)$ is the identity matrix except for its block on coordinates $i,j$:This article uses left matrix multiplication on column vectors. If $c=\cos \theta$ and $s=\sin \theta$, the block is a rotation matrix through angle $-\theta$: the minus sign belongs in the lower left. Its transpose reverses the rotation. Direct multiplication gives $G^{T}G=I$ and determinant one, so it is an orthogonal matrix; consequently $\Vert Gx{\Vert }_2^2=x^T{G}^{T}Gx=\Vert x{\Vert }_2^2$. Only two coordinates change, but this Euclidean norm identity holds for the entire vector.

Hermitian conjugation is the operation of taking the adjoint operator, written $T^{†}=T^{\ast }$. For a matrix in orthonormal bases, it takes the complex conjugate of each entry and exchanges rows with columns:For a real matrix it is the ordinary transpose. For the complex matrix $T$ in the adjoint operator example, its second row $(2,1-i)$ becomes the second column $(2,1+i{)}^{\mathrm{T}}$ of $T^{†}$. This is the same conjugate transpose used in MIT's treatment of complex inner products and Hermitian matrices.^[ref]

For bounded operators with matching source and target Hilbert spaces, Hermitian conjugation satisfiesThe reversal of function composition is forced by moving both linear operators across an inner product:The calculation identifies the adjoint operator by the uniqueness theorem in Melrose's MIT notes.^[ref]

For a computed order check, let $S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$ and reuse $T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& i\\ 2& 1-i\end{array}\right)$. ThenKeeping the original order gives a different matrix. Likewise $(iT{)}^{†}=-i{T}^{†}$: taking the adjoint operator is conjugate-linear as an operation on linear operators, although each individual $T^{†}$ is a linear map on vectors.

The Kalman prediction step advances the previous posterior mean and posterior covariance matrix through the state transition:The minus superscript marks information before observing $y_t$. The transpose and matrix multiplication propagate the old uncertainty; $Q_t$ adds the uncertainty of the new process noise. A known control input changes the mean but contributes no additional variance. If the control input itself is uncertain, that uncertainty needs its own model.

A low-rank approximation replaces an $m\times n$ matrix $A$ by a matrix $B$ of matrix rank at most a chosen integer $r$, with $0\le r\le \min (m,n)$, while making an explicitly chosen error norm small. The point is to describe many entries using a few shared patterns: an image compression may retain broad brightness patterns while discarding finer ones. The approximation is useful when the saved storage or computation justifies the lost detail. A small matrix rank alone says nothing about the error.

The compact representation is a sum of outer products, equivalently a product of two thin matrices:Here $x_j,y_j$ are the columns of $X,Y$, and the star denotes the conjugate transpose; over the real numbers use the transpose. The rank bound for a matrix product gives $\mathrm{rank}B\le r$. Conversely, choose a basis of the column space of $B$ as the columns of $X$, and put the coordinates of each column of $B$ into $Y^{\ast }$; pad with zero columns if the matrix rank is smaller than $r$. Each nonzero outer product is a rank-one matrix: it repeats a single column pattern at different strengths across the columns.

Keeping the two factors stores $r(m+n)$ scalars instead of $mn$. This saves space only when $r(m+n)<mn$. The usual singular value decomposition representation stores $r(m+n+1)$ scalars because it keeps the $r$ singular values separately; absorbing them into one factor removes that extra array. These are representation sizes at equal scalar precision, before file overhead. See Uschmajew and Vandereycken, §9.2: thin factors and their storage, and Illinois CS 357, Low-rank approximation: storing singular vectors and values.

The factors also give $Bz=X(Y^{\ast }z)$ without forming the full matrix $B$. Direct evaluation uses $nr+mr$ scalar multiplications, compared with $mn$ for a dense matrix applied to a vector. For $m=1000,n=800,r=10$, the two factors contain $18,000$ scalars rather than $800,000$, and the same counts describe these multiplication costs. Constructing the factors is a separate cost. Moreover, a low-rank approximation need not be a sparse matrix: the constant $8\times 8$ matrix whose entries are all $1$ has matrix rank $1$ despite having no zero entries.

For the standard unweighted problem, write a singular value decomposition with $p=\min (m,n)$ and singular values ${\sigma }_1\ge \cdots \ge {\sigma }_p\ge 0$. Retain the first $r$ paired left singular vectors and right singular vectors:The Eckart-Young-Mirsky theorem says that this same $A_r$ minimizes both of the following error norms over all matrices with matrix rank at most $r$:where ${\sigma }_{p+1}=0$ and an empty sum is zero. Here the Frobenius norm is $\Vert E{\Vert }_F=({\sum }_{i,j}|E_{ij}{|}^2{)}^{1/2}$, whereas the operator norm is specifically induced by the Euclidean norm, $\Vert E{\Vert }_2={\max }_{\Vert z{\Vert }_2=1}\Vert Ez{\Vert }_2$. The first aggregates errors in all entries; the second bounds the worst output error for a unit vector input. These formulas apply to real and complex matrices. ^[ref]

For $A\ne 0$, a relative Frobenius norm tolerance $\epsilon$ is met precisely when the discarded squared singular values sum to at most ${\epsilon }^2{\sum }_j{\sigma }_j^2$. Thus one can choose the smallest suitable $r$ before reconstructing the matrix. Many individually small discarded singular values can still have a large combined error. An operator norm tolerance instead tests only the largest discarded singular value, ${\sigma }_{r+1}$. The two questions can therefore select different ranks.

The following stipulated $8\times 8$ matrix makes the tradeoff visible. Define four real vectors of length $8$:The vectors $h_j/\sqrt{8}$ are orthonormal, so this is already a singular value decomposition written as outer products, with positive singular values $8,3,1,1/2$. All entries lie between $7/16$ and $25/16$ and can be displayed as brightnesses. The first component is uniform brightness, the second distinguishes broad blocks, and the last two supply finer alternating patterns. This is a designed arithmetic example, not measured image data.

Here $A_1=h_0{h}_0^T$ has every entry equal to $1$, while $A_2=h_0{h}_0^T+3h_1{h}_1^T/8$ has entries $11/8$ within the two diagonal blocks and $5/8$ in the other two blocks. For instance, $A_{11}=25/16$ becomes $(A_2{)}_{11}=11/8$: its error is $3/16$. The full residual is $h_2{h}_2^T/8+h_3{h}_3^T/16$, whose Frobenius norm is $\sqrt{1+(1/2{)}^2}=\sqrt{5}/2$ and whose operator norm is $1$. Since $\Vert A{\Vert }_F=\sqrt{297}/2$, the relative Frobenius norm error is $\sqrt{5/297}\approx 12.97\%$. Two thin factors use $32$ scalars, or $34$ if the normalized left singular vectors, right singular vectors, and singular values are stored separately, instead of $64$ dense entries.

Retaining three components reduces the Frobenius norm error to $1/2$ while using $48$ scalars in two factors. Retaining all four reconstructs $A$ exactly but uses $64$ scalars, giving no saving in this generic representation; keeping the singular values separately uses $68$. Our particular sign patterns could be encoded more economically, but that would exploit an additional structure beyond the general low-rank approximation. The striking feature is that numerical error and storage can both be read from the decomposition, rather than judged only by how smooth the picture looks.

The constraint is deliberately matrix rank at most $r$. The truncation has $\mathrm{rank}{A}_r=\min (r,\mathrm{rank}A)$. If $\mathrm{rank}A<r$, the best approximation is $A$ itself, with zero error. Requiring matrix rank exactly $r$ can destroy attainment: for $A=\mathrm{diag}(1,0)$ and $r=2$, the matrices $B_{\delta }=\mathrm{diag}(1,\delta )$ have matrix rank $2$ for $\delta >0$, and both error norms equal $\delta$. Their error has infimum zero, but no rank-two matrix attains it. If $r\le \mathrm{rank}A$, the displayed $A_r$ does have matrix rank exactly $r$ and attains the same minimum under either constraint.

Optimality also does not always mean uniqueness. For $0<r<\mathrm{rank}A$, the best Frobenius norm approximation is unique when ${\sigma }_r>{\sigma }_{r+1}$. ^[ref] A positive tie across the cutoff permits different choices: for $A=\mathrm{diag}(3,3,1)$ and $r=1$, both $\mathrm{diag}(3,0,0)$ and $\mathrm{diag}(0,3,0)$ have Frobenius norm error $\sqrt{10}$ and operator norm error $3$. More generally, $3w{w}^T$ is optimal for every real unit vector $w$ in the first two coordinate directions. Rotating which tied direction is kept changes the approximation. Repeated singular values entirely inside the retained group do not change its sum of outer products. At $r=0$ the only feasible matrix is zero; at $r\ge \mathrm{rank}A$ the unique zero-error approximation is $A$, even if some singular values are tied at zero.

A strict gap does not guarantee uniqueness for the operator norm. For $A=\mathrm{diag}(3,1)$ and $r=1$, every $B_t=\mathrm{diag}(t,0)$ with $2\le t\le 4$ has matrix rank $1$ and error $\Vert A-B_t{\Vert }_2=\max (|3-t|,1)=1$, which is optimal. Only $t=3$ minimizes the Frobenius norm, since $\Vert A-B_t{\Vert }_F=\sqrt{(3-t{)}^2+1}$. An unchanged worst direction can hide extra error in another direction under the operator norm.

Finally, these guarantees concern the stated norms and the sole matrix rank constraint. They do not establish that a discarded pattern is noise or irrelevant to a particular task: the finer patterns in our constructed example were put there intentionally. Adding entrywise weights or restrictions on the factors changes the problem, so the Eckart-Young-Mirsky theorem above does not automatically solve it. For historical context, the original 1936 matrix problem is documented in the existing Eckart-Young-Mirsky theorem section.

The Moore-Penrose inverse extends the useful part of a matrix inverse to rectangular and singular matrices. A linear system $Ax=b$ may have no exact solution, or may have many. The pseudoinverse resolves both ambiguities: $x_{\ast }=A^{+}b$ is the minimum-norm least-squares solution. First minimize the Euclidean norm $\Vert Ax-b{\Vert }_2$; among all vectors attaining that minimum, choose the one with smallest Euclidean norm $\Vert x{\Vert }_2$. It does not pretend that inconsistent equations can all be satisfied.

For $A\in {\mathbb{C}}^{m\times n}$, its Moore-Penrose inverse is the unique $n\times m$ matrix satisfying the four Penrose equations. The singular value decomposition gives a direct construction:Here $U,V$ are unitary matrices, the star is the conjugate transpose, and ${\Sigma }^{+}$ is the $n\times m$ rectangular diagonal matrix obtained by replacing each nonzero singular value ${\sigma }_j$ by $1/{\sigma }_j$ and leaving zeros at zero. Over the real numbers, use orthogonal matrices and transposes. The pseudoinverse reverses the stretches that can be reversed; it discards output components the original linear map cannot produce and does not invent an input component in its kernel. ^[ref]

The two products have especially clear meanings:They are orthogonal projection matrices: $A{A}^{+}$ selects the producible part of an output, while $A^{+}A$ selects the detectable part of an input. They are generally not identity matrices. For an invertible matrix, both are identities and $A^{+}=A^{-1}$.

This gives a useful order of operations for least-squares solutions: project the requested output onto the column space, then invert the restriction of $A$ from $(\ker A{)}^{\perp }$ to its column space. Adding a kernel vector leaves the residual unchanged but increases the squared Euclidean norm by the Pythagorean theorem in an inner-product space, because $A^{+}b$ is orthogonal to that kernel. The pseudoinverse therefore provides one canonical answer without hiding either lost information or irreconcilable data.

The name records a history with several contributors. E. H. Moore gave an earlier generalization in 1920; M. H. Pearl's 1966 paper records that work, Arne Bjerhammar's 1951 rediscovery for maximal-rank rectangular matrices, and Roger Penrose's independent 1955 treatment. ^[ref] Penrose's original paper proves existence and uniqueness from the four Penrose equations for arbitrary complex matrices, including rectangular ones. ^[ref]

A matrix represents a linear projection when applying it twice has the same effect as applying it once. For an orthogonal projection with the standard Hermitian inner product on ${\mathbb{C}}^m$, the additional condition is that the conjugate transpose equals the original matrix:Thus $P$ is both idempotent and a Hermitian matrix. Over the real numbers this says $P^2=P=P^T$. Its image of a linear map is the retained linear subspace, while its kernel of a linear map is the orthogonal complement: vectors in the image are unchanged, and vectors in the kernel become zero.

For a matrix $A$ with full column rank, projecting onto its column space givesThe invertibility of $A^{†}A$ follows from linear independence of the columns. If those columns are an orthonormal set, $A^{†}A=I$ and $P=A{A}^{†}$. These formulas and the conditions $P^2=P=P^T$ in the real case are developed in MIT 18.06SC, Projections onto Subspaces, pp. 1–3.

For the line spanned by $e=(1,2{)}^T$,In particular, $Pe=e$ and $P(2,-1{)}^T=0$. The eigenvalues are $1$ on the retained direction and $0$ on the removed direction. This exposes the meaning of an orthogonal projection as retaining selected components, rather than stretching them.

Symmetry refers to the specified inner product. In the real weighted setting, the formula becomes $P_M=A(A^{T}MA{)}^{-1}{A}^{T}M$ and satisfies $P_M^2=P_M$ and $P_M^{T}M=M{P}_M$. For the preceding weighted line example,It is not symmetric under the ordinary transpose, but it is an orthogonal projection for the weighted Euclidean inner product. The matrix criterion $P=P^{†}$ should therefore be used with the standard Hermitian inner product, not silently transferred to a different geometry.

Write vectors in a symplectic basis as $v={\sum }_i(q_i{e}_i+p_i{f}_i)$ and $w={\sum }_i(Q_i{e}_i+P_i{f}_i)$. Their coordinate vectors and the matrix of a bilinear form areHere $I_n$ is the identity matrix, and $T$ denotes transpose. The ordering matters: interleaving the basis as $(e_1,f_1,\dots ,e_n,f_n)$ instead gives a block diagonal matrix with $2\times 2$ blocks $\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ -1& 0\end{array}\right)$. Some conventions reverse every $f_i$, giving $-J$ instead. Always check the displayed pairing convention.^[ref]

Over the real numbers, each summand is the signed area of a parallelogram in the $(q_i,p_i)$ coordinate plane. For $a=(2,1,1,1{)}^T$ and $b=(1,1,0,2{)}^T$, the two signed areas are $-1$ and $1$, so $\omega (a,b)=0$ although the vectors are linearly independent. The cancellation concerns the symplectic form; it does not assert that their dot product vanishes. Over a general field, the same determinant formula is algebraic, without a signed geometric interpretation.

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.

A reduced QR decomposition of an $m\times k$ matrix over the real numbers with full column rank, $m\ge k$, writes $A=QR$, where $Q$ is $m\times k$ with orthonormal columns and $R$ is a $k\times k$ upper triangular matrix with positive diagonal. Applying the Gram-Schmidt process to the columns $v_j$ of $A$ constructs $Q=(q_1\cdots q_k)$ and records the coefficientsThis last column identity is exactly the matrix multiplication $A=QR$. The upper triangular matrix records that the $j$th input uses only the first $j$ new directions, while its positive diagonal records the norms of the nonzero orthogonal projection residuals. Since $Q^{T}Q=I$, one also has $R=Q^{T}A$; $Q^T$ denotes the transpose and $I$ the identity matrix. Over the complex numbers, use the conjugate transpose $Q^{\ast }$ in these identities.

For the three-dimensional Gram-Schmidt process example, the exact matrices areFor example, the last column reconstructs asThe diagonal entries are approximately $1.414214,1.224745,1.154701$. Each is a norm of the new direction before it was scaled to length one.

For a linear least-squares problem, the orthogonal projection of $b$ onto the column space of $A$ is $Q{Q}^{T}b$. Hence the minimizing coefficients solve the linear system $Rx=Q^{T}b$ by back substitution. Let $A_2=(v_1{v}_2)$ consist of the first two columns of the example; its reduced factors are $Q_2=(q_1{q}_2)$ and the leading $2\times 2$ block $R_2$ of $R$. For $b=(0,0,1{)}^T$, the linear system $R_{2}x=Q_2^{T}b$ isThus $A_{2}x=(1/3,-1/3,2/3{)}^T$, agreeing with the orthogonal projection computed above, and the minimum Euclidean norm of $A_{2}x-b$ is $1/\sqrt{3}$. The QR decomposition separates building an orthonormal basis from recovering coefficients in the original basis.^[ref]

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 sesquilinear form on a complex vector space $V$ is a map $B:V\times V\to \mathbb{C}$ which, with the convention used throughout this article, is a linear map in its first argument and a conjugate-linear map in its second. For vectors $u,v,w$ and complex numbers $\alpha ,\beta$, the defining identities areThe bars denote complex conjugation. No symmetry or positivity is required. Some authors choose the opposite convention; every formula here keeps the first argument linear.^[ref]

For a basis $e_1,\dots ,e_n$ of a finite-dimensional vector space, write $u={\sum }_i{x}_i{e}_i$, $v={\sum }_j{y}_j{e}_j$, and $A_{ij}=B(e_i,e_j)$. Expanding by the two identities givesEvery complex matrix $A$ gives a sesquilinear form this way. The superscript $T$ means transpose, not conjugate transpose. Equivalently, the scalar is $y^{\ast }{A}^{T}x$, where $y^{\ast }={\overline{y}}^T$. This is the convention used for the matrix of a Hermitian form when symmetry is imposed. The coordinate formula follows directly by expanding the basis coefficients.^[ref]

For a concrete example on ${\mathbb{C}}^2$, let $B(z,w)=z_1\overline{w_2}$. Its matrix is $\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$: $B(e_1,e_2)=1$ but $B(e_2,e_1)=0$, so it is not a Hermitian form. Also $B((1,i),(1,i))=-i$, so even real diagonal values cannot be assumed for an arbitrary sesquilinear form. By comparison, the bilinear form $F(z,w)=z_1{w}_1+z_2{w}_2$ satisfies $F(iz,w)=F(z,iw)=iF(z,w)$ and has $F((i,0),(i,0))=-1$; it cannot supply positive squared lengths on this complex vector space.

The effect of changing the complex argument of a multiplier is particularly revealing. For real numbers $\theta ,\varphi$, sesquilinear forms satisfyThus a common change of complex argument cancels from the diagonal, whereas the two arguments rotate the output in opposite directions. Conjugating one argument is what replaces the ${\alpha }^2$ scaling of a bilinear form by the nonnegative $|\alpha {|}^2$ scaling needed for a Hermitian inner product. This mechanism also works in function spaces: for complex continuous functions on $[0,1]$, $B(f,g)={\int }_0^{1}f(t)\overline{g(t)}dt$ obeys the same identities, letting integration measure overlap rather than merely multiply coefficients.