Row Vectors vs. Column Vectors - What's the difference?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between row vectors and column vectorsexploring both practical and theoretical aspects. Participants express confusion regarding the definitions and applications of these vector typesparticularly in relation to the gradient of functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the difference between row and column vectorsquestioning whether it is merely a practical distinction or if there is a deeper theoretical difference.
  • Another participant asserts that there is no real differencesuggesting that column vectors are standard in vector spaces for linear transformationswhile row vectors are used for specific operations like dot products.
  • A participant explains that co-vectorswhich belong to the dual spaceare often represented as row vectorsallowing for matrix multiplication with column vectors to yield scalars.
  • Some participants note that the choice between row and column representation is arbitrarybut emphasize the importance of consistency in definitions across texts.
  • One participant expresses frustration at not finding a satisfactory explanation for the deeper reasons behind the distinctiondespite hints in some literature.
  • Another participant suggests that the distinction may serve to differentiate between vectors and co-vectorsfacilitating their interaction through matrix multiplication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether there is a significant theoretical difference between row and column vectors. Multiple competing views are presented regarding their definitions and applications.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference the gradient's representation as either a row or column vectorindicating potential confusion in different texts. The conversation also highlights the need for clarity in definitions when discussing vectors and co-vectors.

Kolmin
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
That’s an old time question that it’s still a mistery to me. It’s a lot of time that I am trying to find an answerbut no text is clear on the topic and I am basically self-taught.

What’s the difference between row vectors and column vectors?

I came to this question when I found that the gradient was defined in two different ways on two different books. This was a problem and I started to look around: the more I was searchingthe more it became a misterycause lot of books state that the gradient is the row vector of the first partial derivatives of a given function.

I fixed this problem in the end (the gradient is not the row vectorbut the column vector)but still I don’t get what’s the difference between row and columnsbeyond a practical one in terms of computation.

Does exist a "deep" theoretical difference between those two types of vectors or it's a metter of distinction between places (row vectors) and displacements (column vectors)?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's no real difference. Vectors in your original vector space are typically thought of as column vectors simply so the calculation Ax for a matrix A is a linear transformation from your vector space to your vector space. If you want to do a linear transformation from V to R(say you want to take an arbitrary vector x and take the dot product with the gradient of a functionwhich I will call g) then to be able to write this as gx you need g to be a row vectorwhich is probably why the one book defined the gradient as a row vector
 
It is fairly common to represent your vectors as columns then you could represent your "co-vectors" (members of the dual spacethe space of linear functionals that take each vector to a number) as a row so that the operation of the functional on vector becomes a matrix product:
\begin{bmatrix}a & b & c\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x \\ y \\ z\end{bmatrix}= ax+ by+ cz.

Of coursethat isas Office Shredder sayspurely arbitrary- you could always represent the vectors by rowsthe funtionals by columns and do the product the other way around.
 
HallsofIvy said:
It is fairly common to represent your vectors as columns then you could represent your "co-vectors" (members of the dual spacethe space of linear functionals that take each vector to a number) as a row so that the operation of the functional on vector becomes a matrix product:
\begin{bmatrix}a & b & c\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x \\ y \\ z\end{bmatrix}= ax+ by+ cz.

Of coursethat isas Office Shredder sayspurely arbitrary- you could always represent the vectors by rowsthe funtionals by columns and do the product the other way around.

But you do need to be clear about which way round you (or a textbook) IS doing it.
\begin{bmatrix}a & b & c\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x \\ y \\ z\end{bmatrix} is a scalarbut
\begin{bmatrix}a \\ b \\ c\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x & y & z\end{bmatrix} is a 3x3 matrix with rank 1. In some applications (e.g. optimization) both of these are used frequently!
 
Thanks a lot.

I kinda had the feeling at a certain point that it was arbitrarybut I found a book that gave a sort of hint about a deep reason behind the use of one or the other. Interestingly enoughthis deep reason never showed upleaving me with nothing more than this doubt.
 
I suspect that the "deep reason"at least the reason for distinguishing between "row" and "column" wasas I saidto be able to differentiate between "vectors" and "co-vectors" and treat their interaction as a matrix multiplication.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K