2

Definition of Transpose is $(A^T)_{ij} = A_{ji}$

$1.$ Why $\begin{bmatrix} M & N \end{bmatrix}^T = \begin{bmatrix} M^T \\ N^T \end{bmatrix}$, and NOT $\begin{bmatrix} M \\ N\end{bmatrix}$?

After the transpose, $M$ is in (1, 1) position and $N$ is in (2,1) position. Why still keep the $^T$?

For example, pursuant to Git Gud's comment, I tried $\begin{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 5 \\ 3 & 7 \\ \end{bmatrix} & \begin{bmatrix} 2 & 6 \\ 4 & 8 \\ \end{bmatrix} \end{bmatrix}^T $.
This means transposing the entries (the two 2 by 2 matrices) once, so: $ \begin{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 5 \\ 3 & 7 \\ \end{bmatrix} \\ \begin{bmatrix} 2 & 6 \\ 4 & 8 \\ \end{bmatrix} \end{bmatrix}$ ?

$2.$ Why $\begin{bmatrix} M \\ N \end{bmatrix}^T = \begin{bmatrix} M^T & N^T \end{bmatrix}$, and NOT $ \begin{bmatrix} M & N \end{bmatrix}$ ?

After transpose - $M$ is in (1, 1) position and $N$ is in (1,2) position. Why still keep the $^T$?

Per contra, this example contains not one $^T$ at the end. I recast it as a question.
I see user Eike Schulte's comment and brook that $c^T = c$ for all complex numbers $c$. $\begin{bmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} \end{bmatrix}^T = \begin{bmatrix} a_{11}^T & a_{12}^T \\ a_{21}^T & a_{22}^T \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} a_{11} & a_{21} \\ a_{12} & a_{22} \end{bmatrix}$

  • 2
    Take $M$ and $N$ to be two $2\times 2$ matrices to convince yourself of this. – Git Gud Apr 15 '14 at 09:46
  • As a side remark, $\pmatrix{M&N}^T$ can be $\pmatrix{M^T\ N^T}$ or $\pmatrix{M\ N}$, depending on the meaning of $\pmatrix{M&N}$: if it is the augmented matrix of $M$ and $N$, its transpose is $\pmatrix{M^T\ N^T}$; if it is a matrix over the ring of matrices (i.e. if each of $M$ and $N$ is by itself a matrix element) then its transpose is $\pmatrix{M\ N}$. However, I presume that you take $\pmatrix{M&N}$ to mean an augmented matrix here. – user1551 Apr 15 '14 at 13:21
  • @GitGud: I just tried this, but I'm still flummoxed. –  Apr 19 '14 at 14:36
  • @LePressentiment I see your very rightful issue. The notation is misleading, (see user1551's comment above). I'll post an answer in a while if no one does in the mean time. – Git Gud Apr 19 '14 at 14:42

2 Answers2

2

Given two matrices $M_{m\times n},N_{m\times p}$, there are two ways to interpret the entity $\begin{bmatrix} M & N \end{bmatrix}$.

One is the $m\times (n+p)$ matrix whose $(i,j)$ entry is $\begin{cases} (M)_{(i,j)}, &\text{if }j\leq n\\ (N)_{(i, j-n)}, &\text{if }j\ge n+1\end{cases}$.

In this case I'd rather denote the matrix described above as $\begin{bmatrix} M \mid N \end{bmatrix}$, (the augmented matrix). This is standard notation.

The other is a $1\times 2$ matrix whose first entry is the matrix $M$ and whose second entry is the matrix $N$.

Under the first interpretation one has $$\begin{bmatrix} M & N \end{bmatrix}^T=\begin{bmatrix} M \mid N \end{bmatrix}^T=\begin{bmatrix} M^T \\ \overline{N^T} \end{bmatrix}.$$

Under the second interpretation one has $$\begin{bmatrix} M & N \end{bmatrix}^T=\begin{bmatrix} M \\ N \end{bmatrix}.$$

The second interpretation is very uncommon. Most of the time it's safe to assume one is under the first interpretation.

An example: Let $M=\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 1\\ 2 & 3 & 5\end{bmatrix}_{2\times 3}$ and $N=\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1\\ 0 & 1\end{bmatrix}_{2\times 2}$.

The first interpretation yields the matrix $A$ where $$(A)_{ij}=\begin{cases} (M)_{(i,j)}, &\text{if }j\leq 3\\ (N)_{(i, j-n)}, &\text{if }j\ge 4\end{cases}, \text{ for all }(i,j)\in \{1,2\}\times\{1,2,3,4,5\}.$$

That is $$ A=\left[\begin{array}{ccc|cc} (M)_{11} & (M)_{12} & (M)_{13} & (N)_{14} & (N)_{15}\\ (M)_{21} & (M)_{22} & (M)_{23} & (N)_{24} & (N)_{25} \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc|cc} 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ 2 & 3 & 5 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right].$$

Transposing yields $A^T=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & 2\\ 0 & 3\\ 1 & 5\\ \hline 1 & 0\\ 1 & 1 \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}M^T\\ \hline N^T \end{array}\right]$.

The second interpretation gives $A_{1\times 2}=\left[\begin{matrix} (A)_{11} & (A)_{12}\end{matrix}\right]_{1\times 2}$ where $(A)_{11}=M$ and $(A)_{12}=N$, transposing: $$\left(A^T\right)_{2\times 1}=\begin{bmatrix} (A)_{11}\\ (A)_{21}\end{bmatrix}_{2\times 1}=\begin{bmatrix} M\\ N\end{bmatrix}_{2\times 1}=\begin{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 1\\ 2 & 3 & 5\end{bmatrix}_{2\times 3}\\ \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1\\ 0 & 1\end{bmatrix}_{2\times 2} \end{bmatrix}_{2\times 1}.$$

Here the entries in the matrix just happen to be matrices themselves, you can create matrices in which their entries are whatever you want. For instance, $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2\\ 3 & 4\end{bmatrix} & \spadesuit\\ \implies & \huge{〠} & +\end{bmatrix}$ is a matrix.

Git Gud
  • 31,706
  • +1. Thank you very much. Please advise if you mind my edit or emend it; I tried to separate the first and second interpretations. I think that your sentence "In this case I'd rather have denoted the matrix described in your question as" refers to the second interpretation, but this was within your paragraph on the 1st interpretation. –  Apr 20 '14 at 11:33
  • @LePressentiment Note "One is the $1×1\quad m×(n+p)$ matrix" remark in your edit. This doesn't make sense. The notation was indeed supposed to be related to the first interpretation. I'm going to roll back the edit. I'm going to add some examples because I think you didn't understand my answer. – Git Gud Apr 20 '14 at 11:36
  • @LePressentiment I hope it is clearer now. Feel free to unnacept my answer if you don't understand it. – Git Gud Apr 20 '14 at 12:17
  • Thank you effusively again. It is categorically helpful! –  Apr 20 '14 at 12:25
  • @LePressentiment I'm glad.You're welcome. – Git Gud Apr 20 '14 at 12:26
  • The vertical bar between columns 3 and 4 displays properly in my browser (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0). http://a.pomf.se/axalip.png – MJD Apr 20 '14 at 12:53
  • @MJD Thanks, I tried it with another browser and it is there indeed. The weird thing is I can see it in your meta post, but not here. – Git Gud Apr 20 '14 at 12:56
0

If you look at row of people lined up in front of a mirror, not only will their mirror images appear in the opposite order (the image of the person closest to the mirror comes first) but also the image of each individual person will be a mirror image (if facing towards the mirror, the mirror image will be facing out of the mirror) just as if the person were alone. The same applies to transposition of a collection of blocks.