> You misuse words so that others that have learned the material cannot understand what you're writing.
> Calling an m-tuple a coefficient and then calling the column span the "coefficient span" does not show understanding of the material.
So… I'm not wrong; I just don't know the words? Sounds like I actually do understand the mathematical concepts. (Maybe I'd find the words easier if mathematicians named stuff sensibly… and yes, I know I'm using English to write that sentence. I'm a hypocrite, but that's no excuse for the naming conventions in abstract algebra and category theory.)
> No, it is a fundamental property of the linear transformation. Gaussian elimination is but one of many ways to compute it.
So why does every textbook, every lecture, and Wikipedia talk incessantly about Gaussian elimination (an algorithm for inverting matrices!) when talking about rank? Rank's only useful as a property of the vector spaces, so why treat it like a separate concept?
> It is also true that the row span = the column span = the rank, which is also not immediately obvious.
The size of the row / column span is the rank, surely? Unless I'm misunderstanding the terminology.
And that's because we have several different concepts to describe the same property, for no reason that I can see. That relationship was immediately obvious to me as soon as I worked out what “rank” was, because I'd done my own investigations into linear algebra before I ever got taught it. (Investigations that I wouldn't've thought to do had I not known about the concepts of linear functions, multi-variate functions and inverses, so I'm not claiming to have independently invented linear alegbra.) There's no way they could be different, because it's about the linear independence (which regions of n- or m-dimensional space are reachable by a linear combination of the… you don't want me to say “coefficients”).
Likewise, I don't think we should be using “row” and “column” to describe linear mappings. “We sometimes write numbers in a grid to represent the function” isn't fundamental.
> And no one calls that m-tuple a coefficient.
But it is a coefficient, if you write the transformation the way I wrote it. Why is that wronger than talking about the “rows” and “columns” of a function? Other than convention, of course.
> None of this is in the book above. Zero.
To be fair, the book does purport to teach statistics; it uses, but does not claim to teach, basic linear algebra. A solid grasp of linear algebra is a prerequisite to understanding the book, so if you understand the book you probably understand linear algebra.
>Maybe I'd find the words easier if mathematicians named stuff sensibly
Column space and row space are completely sensible.
>And that's because we have several different concepts to describe the same property, for no reason that I can see.
You do not see. If you think column space and row space are the same thing, then that's completely wrong. They have the same dimension, which is a theorem, but they are not the same space.
>But it is a coefficient,
So is everything, which is why calling this a coefficient, when there is a better word, is useless.
If you have columns m1, m2, m3, m4, and form the linear combination a1m1 + a2m2 +... Then the ai are also coefficients. And they're much more like what people call coefficients since they're scalars. If you want to call the mi the coefficients, what are you calling the ai? Numbers? Integers? Crawdads?
The mi are vectors, they are column vectors, linear combinations of them form a subspace, and the things multiplied by them to form the subspace are called coefficients.
So yes, you can call them coefficients, but you may as well call them numbers, or pointy-things, or anything else you make up, and no one will be able to talk with you, since you insist on doing things in a manner that makes your work unintellgible.
>Likewise, I don't think we should be using “row” and “column” to describe linear mappings. “We sometimes write numbers in a grid to represent the function” isn't fundamental.
... and you're off the deep end again. I'm glad you invented close but not correct linear algebra, that you missed so many important relations, that you use words in the manner you believe they should be, and on and on.
Of course, your methods clearly must be better than centuries of mathematicians - you should publish a book and clear it up for everyone.
>So why does every textbook
It's baffling to me how hard you push at simply learning. Pick up one of those textbooks I mentioned, and look at every page indexed to rank, and look at how it's used.
That you continue to debate this point is astounding and willful ignorance. I've given you why it's important. I've shown that in textbooks it indexed second only to dimension. I've given at least 5 places it shows up. I've explained how it's the dimension of extremely important items.
It becomes more and more important the deeper you go into math, and that is probably the biggest reason it is so important here. The concept of rank is the tip of an iceberg going through everything above linear algebra: Hilbert spaces, operator theory, exact sequences, homology, cohomology, topology, and on and on and on.
I'm done. You don't care to learn. You want to keep claiming your made up vocabulary and sloppy terms that miss important issues are superior. You're far too stubborn to educate. Go do it yourself.
> You do not see. If you think column space and row space are the same thing, then that's completely wrong.
You were the one who wrote column space = row space…?
> If you want to call the mi the coefficients, what are you calling the ai?
I'm calling them the coefficients because they're “part of the function” and don't change. They're the thing you'd naturally call a coefficient. Coefficient isn't as broad a term as you seem to think it is; In f(x) = x² + x + 3, the coefficients are 3, 1 and 1; not 1, x and x².
> You should publish a book and clear it up for everyone.
As soon as I have any actually original work, I plan to. But linear algebra isn't a specialism of mine, so I doubt I ever will.
And no, I don't think the terminology I've used here is an improvement over the status quo; I'm not a complete imbecile. I just don't get why terminology is considered more important than understanding in mathematics education, and why it's practically impossible to use different words for things even when you do have an improvement.)
> That you continue to debate this point is astounding and willful ignorance. I've given you why it's important. I've shown that in textbooks it indexed second only to dimension. I've given at least 5 places it shows up. I've explained how it's the dimension of extremely important items.
If you think any of those are counterarguments, you were never addressing what I was trying to say.
> You want to keep claiming your made up vocabulary and sloppy terms that miss important issues are superior.
Where did I claim this? I believe I said I was “not wrong” (a weaker label than “correct”), and I identified some problems I have with the existing terminology, but I don't think I ever said my (inconsistent, ad-hoc) terminology was better.
> Calling an m-tuple a coefficient and then calling the column span the "coefficient span" does not show understanding of the material.
So… I'm not wrong; I just don't know the words? Sounds like I actually do understand the mathematical concepts. (Maybe I'd find the words easier if mathematicians named stuff sensibly… and yes, I know I'm using English to write that sentence. I'm a hypocrite, but that's no excuse for the naming conventions in abstract algebra and category theory.)
> No, it is a fundamental property of the linear transformation. Gaussian elimination is but one of many ways to compute it.
So why does every textbook, every lecture, and Wikipedia talk incessantly about Gaussian elimination (an algorithm for inverting matrices!) when talking about rank? Rank's only useful as a property of the vector spaces, so why treat it like a separate concept?
> It is also true that the row span = the column span = the rank, which is also not immediately obvious.
The size of the row / column span is the rank, surely? Unless I'm misunderstanding the terminology.
And that's because we have several different concepts to describe the same property, for no reason that I can see. That relationship was immediately obvious to me as soon as I worked out what “rank” was, because I'd done my own investigations into linear algebra before I ever got taught it. (Investigations that I wouldn't've thought to do had I not known about the concepts of linear functions, multi-variate functions and inverses, so I'm not claiming to have independently invented linear alegbra.) There's no way they could be different, because it's about the linear independence (which regions of n- or m-dimensional space are reachable by a linear combination of the… you don't want me to say “coefficients”).
Likewise, I don't think we should be using “row” and “column” to describe linear mappings. “We sometimes write numbers in a grid to represent the function” isn't fundamental.
> And no one calls that m-tuple a coefficient.
But it is a coefficient, if you write the transformation the way I wrote it. Why is that wronger than talking about the “rows” and “columns” of a function? Other than convention, of course.
> None of this is in the book above. Zero.
To be fair, the book does purport to teach statistics; it uses, but does not claim to teach, basic linear algebra. A solid grasp of linear algebra is a prerequisite to understanding the book, so if you understand the book you probably understand linear algebra.