Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

 Posts: 236
 Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC
Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
To do this you would take a normal matrix and replace one of the numbers inside it with a matrix. I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this but I have seen nothing written about it.
Re: Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
I'm fairly sure the answer is yes, on the basis of that was a question on a quiz I had in my first quantum course. I don't think this fact was explicitly used, but I'm pretty sure that it is indeed fair game to have a matrix whose elements are themselves matrices.
That said, I suspect those things would be equivalent to higher dimensional matrices, i.e. tensors, but don't quote me on that.
That said, I suspect those things would be equivalent to higher dimensional matrices, i.e. tensors, but don't quote me on that.
Re: Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
Oh, right, I suppose that counts. In that case, those were definitely used explicitly and are nifty, but I've always thought of that as just short hand for the larger matrix, rather then a matrix of matrices.
My response was thinking more along cases like: Let A be a 2x2 matrix, with a_{00}=B, a_{01}=1, a_{10}=2, a_{11}=3, where B is itself a 2x2 matrix.
I'm less sure of what that would mean, although as far as I can tell one could still do math with it. (You could pretend the 1, 2, 3, are square blocks of the number in question I suppose, but I don't see that as being required.)
My response was thinking more along cases like: Let A be a 2x2 matrix, with a_{00}=B, a_{01}=1, a_{10}=2, a_{11}=3, where B is itself a 2x2 matrix.
I'm less sure of what that would mean, although as far as I can tell one could still do math with it. (You could pretend the 1, 2, 3, are square blocks of the number in question I suppose, but I don't see that as being required.)
 Cleverbeans
 Posts: 1378
 Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC
Re: Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
Since matrices only use addition and multiplication for their operations their entries can come from any ring including rings of matrices, however not all block matrices have to follow that form. Note that not all the results from linear algebra generalize when entries come from an arbitrary ring but you can absolutely put all kinds of goodies into matrices besides complex numbers.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."  Abraham Lincoln
Re: Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
It is fine to look at matrices with matrices as entries. But in this case, all entries should be matrices of the same size (unless you define the addition of matrices of different sizes or matrix+scalar or whatever, too).
Edit: See antonfire below, there is a bit more freedom.
Edit: See antonfire below, there is a bit more freedom.
Last edited by mfb on Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:09 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
Yes, this is, as I understand it, this would be a fourth order tensor.
A matrix can be perceived as a vector of vectors, a order rank tensor would be a matrix of vectors and a fourthorder would be a thirdorder tensor of vectors (which is a secondrank tensor of secondrank tensors of which a subset would matrices of matrices.
As has been said, all the matrices would need to be of the same dimension to do anything really with them.
A matrix can be perceived as a vector of vectors, a order rank tensor would be a matrix of vectors and a fourthorder would be a thirdorder tensor of vectors (which is a secondrank tensor of secondrank tensors of which a subset would matrices of matrices.
As has been said, all the matrices would need to be of the same dimension to do anything really with them.
my pronouns are they
Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)
 NathanielJ
 Posts: 882
 Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:04 pm UTC
Re: Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
Related topic that may be of interest to the original poster: Kronecker product.
Re: Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
It's sensible to talk about 2x2 matrixes whose entries are an nxn matrix, an nxm matrix, an mxn matrix, and an mxm matrix. You can add and multiply such matrices just fine.mfb wrote:It is fine to look at matrices with matrices as entries. But in this case, all entries should be matrices of the same size, otherwise not even the addition would be welldefined (unless you define the addition of matrices of different sizes or matrix+scalar or whatever, too).
Jerry Bona wrote:The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?
 Cleverbeans
 Posts: 1378
 Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC
Re: Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
antonfire wrote:It's sensible to talk about 2x2 matrixes whose entries are an nxn matrix, an nxm matrix, an mxn matrix, and an mxm matrix. You can add and multiply such matrices just fine.mfb wrote:It is fine to look at matrices with matrices as entries. But in this case, all entries should be matrices of the same size, otherwise not even the addition would be welldefined (unless you define the addition of matrices of different sizes or matrix+scalar or whatever, too).
How is matrix multiplication well defined in the nxm and nxm case? Closure is a rather important property despite it's rather innocent statement.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."  Abraham Lincoln
Re: Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
Cleverbeans wrote:antonfire wrote:It's sensible to talk about 2x2 matrixes whose entries are an nxn matrix, an nxm matrix, an mxn matrix, and an mxm matrix. You can add and multiply such matrices just fine.mfb wrote:It is fine to look at matrices with matrices as entries. But in this case, all entries should be matrices of the same size, otherwise not even the addition would be welldefined (unless you define the addition of matrices of different sizes or matrix+scalar or whatever, too).
How is matrix multiplication well defined in the nxm and nxm case? Closure is a rather important property despite it's rather innocent statement.
Try multiplying two 2x2 matrices of the form antonfire described. Everything works out nicely.
 Yakk
 Poster with most posts but no title.
 Posts: 11078
 Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
 Location: E pur si muove
Re: Can you have matricies inside of matricies?
Each matrix M has a left and right size (rows and columns).
M1 M2 is valid only if right(M1) = left(M2)
left(M1 M2) = left(M1)
right(M1 M2) = right(M2)
M1+M2 is valid only if right(M1)=right(M2) and left(M1)=left(M2)
On top of this, the elements of M1 and M2 have to be compatible. In the 2x2 case:
This generates these restrictions on the elements:
right(a_y,0) = left(b_0,x) for x,y in [0,1] x [0,1]
right(a_y,1) = left(b_1,x) for x,y in [0,1] x [0,1]
left(a_x,0) = left(a_x,1) for x in [0,1]
right(b_x,0) = right(b_x,1) for x in [0,1]
So the restriction on the A matrix's component dimensions are:
and the B matrix's component dimensions:
and the product dimensions:
If you want this to be a ring, you need these to agree.
Define w:= n = m = s
Define v:= t = q = p
Which gives you dimensions of:
for matrix elements of a 2x2 matrix that can act as a ring.
Exercise: do this for 3x3 matrices. What are the restrictions on the elements? Describe all such rings of 3x3 matrices.
M1 M2 is valid only if right(M1) = left(M2)
left(M1 M2) = left(M1)
right(M1 M2) = right(M2)
M1+M2 is valid only if right(M1)=right(M2) and left(M1)=left(M2)
On top of this, the elements of M1 and M2 have to be compatible. In the 2x2 case:
Code: Select all
[ a_0,0  a_0,1 ] [ b_0,0  b_0,1 ] [ a_0,0 b_0,0 + a_0,1 b_1,0  a_0,0 b_0,1 + a_0,1 b_1,1 ]
[ + ] [ + ] = [ + ]
[ a_1,0  a_1,1 ] [ b_1,0  b_1,1 ] [ a_1,0 b_0,0 + a_1,1 b_1,0  a_1,0 b_0,1 + a_1,1 b_1,1 ]
This generates these restrictions on the elements:
right(a_y,0) = left(b_0,x) for x,y in [0,1] x [0,1]
right(a_y,1) = left(b_1,x) for x,y in [0,1] x [0,1]
left(a_x,0) = left(a_x,1) for x in [0,1]
right(b_x,0) = right(b_x,1) for x in [0,1]
So the restriction on the A matrix's component dimensions are:
Code: Select all
[ m x n  m x p ]
[ q x n  q x p ]
and the B matrix's component dimensions:
Code: Select all
[ n x s  n x t ]
[ p x s  p x t ]
and the product dimensions:
Code: Select all
[ m x s  m x t ]
[ q x s  q x t ]
If you want this to be a ring, you need these to agree.
Define w:= n = m = s
Define v:= t = q = p
Which gives you dimensions of:
Code: Select all
[ w x w  w x v ]
[ v x w  v x v ]
for matrix elements of a 2x2 matrix that can act as a ring.
Exercise: do this for 3x3 matrices. What are the restrictions on the elements? Describe all such rings of 3x3 matrices.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision  BR
Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests