2 1 3 4 0 7 3 5= 2 4 8(2) 8(1) 8(3) 8( 4) 8(0) 8(7) 3 5= 2 4 16 8 24 32 0 56 3 5 We see that if we multiply by k = 0 we get a matrix where all the entries are 0. Allavsoft spotify. This has a special name. The m n matrix where every entry is 0 is called the m n zero matrix. Thus we have zero matrices of every possible size. If X is a matrix then we can say X +0 = X.
By Murray Bourne, 26 Nov 2015
Reader Nour recently wrote:
Hello! 🙂
I just had a problem and got stuck when i tried to multiply (A.B).C where A ,B and C are three matrices with dimensions 1x3, 3x1 and 3x1 respectively. I got the product of (A.B) with a 1x1 dimensional matrix.
- The matrix CSS function defines a homogeneous 2D transformation matrix. Its result is a transform-function data type. 1, 0, tx, ty, 0, 1).
- The Matrix™ per role Share. Bring energy, work moral, body language, be coachable, use 1 password and full disk encryption;). Focus on finishing stuff.
The question is: can a 1x1 matrix be a scalar? So should I just stop and say that 1x1 and 3x1 can't be multiplied?
Or is the matrix [2] = 2 a scalar (for example)?
And continue multiplying the scalar (AB) with the matrix C?
This was an interesting question. First, let me explain the issue a bit.
Multiplying matrices
We learn in the Multiplying Matrices section that we can multiply matrices with dimensions (m × n) and (n × p) (say), because the inner 2 numbers are the same (both n). The result will be a vector of dimension (m × p) (these are the outside 2 numbers).
Now, in Nour's example, her matrices A, B and C have dimensions 1x3, 3x1 and 3x1 respectively.
So let's invent some numbers to see what's happening.
Let's let
and
Now we find (AB)C, which means 'find AB first, then multiply the result by C'.
Next,
The above line is Nour's dilemma. Are we allowed to multiply the above? We have the following situation:
(1 × 1) matrix × (3 × 1) matrix
According to what I said above, since the inside numbers (1 and 3) are different, then we can't multiply the matrices. Microsoft office 2019 free download full version forever.
However, if we regard a (1 × 1) matrix as a scalar, we can multiply them just fine, and get the following result:
Which is correct?
Software solutions
Scientific Notebook gave me the following for the first step:
That is, it regards a 1×1 matrix as a scalar. It was fine with the scalar times matrix step and gave the same as my second result above.
However, it choked (it refused to answer) when I tried to do it all in one go, like this:
Even giving it a hint (by putting brackets) didn't help:
Wolfram|Alpha regards the result of AB as a (1 × 1) matrix. Here's a screen shot:
It did not behave well and gave rather strange results when trying to do the whole thing. Here's a screen shot of its answer for ABC, where it regarded parts of the question as a vector, and other parts as a matrix:
SageMath (the free cloud-based computer algebra system) also regards the result of AB as a (1 × 1) matrix. It appropriately chokes when trying to do the whole thing. Here's a screen shot:
What do the forums say?
Here's one conversation on Stackexchange: Are one-by-one matrices equivalent to scalars?
This next one has a contradictory conclusion: Is a one by one matrix just a number scalar?
And there's more enlightenment here on this Google+ discussion.
What I told Nour
My feel is that your statement 'So i will just stop and say that 1x1 and 3x1 can't be multiplied' is correct. While the outer numbers are the same, the inner ones are not, so you can't multiply them.
What do you think?
Conclusion
Mathematics is not always a consistently behaved beast, despite what many text books say.
See the 10 Comments below.
Related posts:
Focus Matrix For Mac
- Multiplying matrices This article points to 2 interactives that show how to multiply matrices.
- Matrices and Flash games This is an interesting tutorial on how matrices are used in Flash animations.
- Matrix operations applet Here's some mathematical background to the matrix operations applet here on IntMath. It involves matrix.
- Updated matrix interactive Here's an applet where you can investigate how matrix operations work.
- Inverse of a matrix by Gauss-Jordan elimination Here's a method for finding inverses of matrices which reduces the chances of getting lost.
By Murray Bourne, 26 Nov 2015
Reader Nour recently wrote:
Hello! 🙂
I just had a problem and got stuck when i tried to multiply (A.B).C where A ,B and C are three matrices with dimensions 1x3, 3x1 and 3x1 respectively. I got the product of (A.B) with a 1x1 dimensional matrix.
The question is: can a 1x1 matrix be a scalar? So should I just stop and say that 1x1 and 3x1 can't be multiplied?
Or is the matrix [2] = 2 a scalar (for example)?
And continue multiplying the scalar (AB) with the matrix C?
This was an interesting question. First, let me explain the issue a bit.
Multiplying matrices
We learn in the Multiplying Matrices section that we can multiply matrices with dimensions (m × n) and (n × p) (say), because the inner 2 numbers are the same (both n). The result will be a vector of dimension (m × p) (these are the outside 2 numbers).
Now, in Nour's example, her matrices A, B and C have dimensions 1x3, 3x1 and 3x1 respectively.
Focus Matrix
So let's invent some numbers to see what's happening.
Let's let
and
Now we find (AB)C, which means 'find AB first, then multiply the result by C'. Lucky fish games.
Next,
The above line is Nour's dilemma. Are we allowed to multiply the above? We have the following situation: Microsoft office 2016 16 12 0.
(1 × 1) matrix × (3 × 1) matrix
According to what I said above, since the inside numbers (1 and 3) are different, then we can't multiply the matrices.
Matrix 1 Movie
However, if we regard a (1 × 1) matrix as a scalar, we can multiply them just fine, and get the following result:
Which is correct?
Software solutions
Scientific Notebook gave me the following for the first step:
That is, it regards a 1×1 matrix as a scalar. It was fine with the scalar times matrix step and gave the same as my second result above.
However, it choked (it refused to answer) when I tried to do it all in one go, like this:
Even giving it a hint (by putting brackets) didn't help:
Wolfram|Alpha regards the result of AB as a (1 × 1) matrix. Here's a screen shot:
It did not behave well and gave rather strange results when trying to do the whole thing. Here's a screen shot of its answer for ABC, where it regarded parts of the question as a vector, and other parts as a matrix:
SageMath (the free cloud-based computer algebra system) also regards the result of AB as a (1 × 1) matrix. It appropriately chokes when trying to do the whole thing. Here's a screen shot:
What do the forums say?
Here's one conversation on Stackexchange: Are one-by-one matrices equivalent to scalars?
This next one has a contradictory conclusion: Is a one by one matrix just a number scalar?
And there's more enlightenment here on this Google+ discussion.
What I told Nour
My feel is that your statement 'So i will just stop and say that 1x1 and 3x1 can't be multiplied' is correct. While the outer numbers are the same, the inner ones are not, so you can't multiply them.
What do you think?
Conclusion
Mathematics is not always a consistently behaved beast, despite what many text books say.
See the 10 Comments below.
Related posts:
- Multiplying matrices This article points to 2 interactives that show how to multiply matrices.
- Matrices and Flash games This is an interesting tutorial on how matrices are used in Flash animations.
- Matrix operations applet Here's some mathematical background to the matrix operations applet here on IntMath. It involves matrix.
- Updated matrix interactive Here's an applet where you can investigate how matrix operations work.
- Inverse of a matrix by Gauss-Jordan elimination Here's a method for finding inverses of matrices which reduces the chances of getting lost.
