## Matrices and Forms I

Yesterday, we defined a Hermitian matrix to be the matrix-theoretic analogue of a self-adjoint transformation. So why should we separate out the two concepts? Well, it turns out that there are more things we can do with a matrix than represent a linear transformation. In fact, we can use matrices to represent forms, as follows.

Let’s start with either a bilinear or a sesquilinear form on the vector space . Let’s also pick an arbitrary basis of . I want to emphasize that this basis is *arbitrary*, since recently we’ve been accustomed to automatically picking orthonormal bases. But notice that I’m not assuming that our form is even an inner product to begin with.

Now we can define a matrix . This completely specifies the form, by either bilinearity or sesquilinearity. And properties of such forms are reflected in their matrices.

For example, suppose that is a conjugate-symmetric sesquilinear form. That is, . Then we look at the matrix and find

so is a Hermitian matrix!

Now the secret here is that the matrix of a form secretly *is* the matrix of a linear transformation. It’s the transformation that takes us from to by acting on one slot of the form, and written in terms of the basis and its dual. Let me be a little more explicit.

When we feed a basis vector into our form , we get a linear functional . We want to write that out in terms of the dual basis as a linear combination

So how do we read off these coefficients? Stick another basis vector into the form!

which is just the same matrix as we found before.

At last: something for Physics.

Comment by Jonathan Vos Post | June 24, 2009 |

DO you mean “Hamiltonian matrix” or “Hermitian matrix”?

Comment by Blaise Pascal | June 24, 2009 |

Sorry, Blaise I have no idea where that came from.. fixing.

Comment by John Armstrong | June 24, 2009 |

Have you treated (or do you plan to treat) forms (p-forms, differential forms)? Your style of brief explanations with lots of examples would be very helpful in providing a basic understanding of this often-overlooked tool.

Comment by Charlie C | June 25, 2009 |

Charlie, I haven’t even done calculus in more than one variable yet.

But! That’s because I want some linear algebra at hand to use where it comes up in multivariable calculus, including just the sort of subjects you mention.

Comment by John Armstrong | June 25, 2009 |

Shouldn’t or is that the standard way to write it (some kind of Einstein’s notation)?

Comment by watchmath | June 25, 2009 |

Yes, and I just noticed that I forgot to hit “publish” on today’s post, which mentions something closer to that.

Comment by John Armstrong | June 25, 2009 |

[...] and Forms II Let’s pick up our discussion of matrices and forms and try to tie both views of our matrix together. We’re considering a bilinear form $ on a [...]

Pingback by Matrices and Forms II « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 25, 2009 |

[...] Spaces in Dirac Notation Now, armed with Dirac notation, we can come back and reconsider matrices and forms. For our background, we’ve got an inner product space. That is, a vector space , [...]

Pingback by Matrices and Bilinear Forms on Inner Product Spaces in Dirac Notation « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 8, 2009 |

[...] forms on the underlying space forms a vector space itself. Indeed, such forms correspond to correspond to Hermitian matrices, which form a vector space. Anyway, rather than write the usual [...]

Pingback by Projecting Onto Invariants « The Unapologetic Mathematician | November 13, 2010 |

[...] we pick a basis of , then we have a matrix for the bilinear [...]

Pingback by Orthogonal and Symplectic Lie Algebras « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 9, 2012 |

[...] we can write down the matrix of [...]

Pingback by Back to the Example « The Unapologetic Mathematician | September 7, 2012 |