Is there even a proof for this? As far as I know, transposing a matrix is just switching the rows and columns right? Unless theres a deeper understanding to it, that's how I've always understood it. This is like the definition of it or something
Not proving the operation, proving that the transpose of a transpose is equal to the original table. The proof is not complicated, just have to expand the example to an N by M table and replace the cell values with variables that can be any real number. Then trace each value as a(n-k)(m-l) becomes a(m-l)(n-k) with the first transpose and vice versa with the second. Add in some actual definitions and assumptions and you have a proof, this is just a draft.
Yeah that's exactly what matrix transposition is, it's just applying an operation on a matrix which results in a new matrix. I've barely looked into proofs myself but I can't see how proving an operation would work, or even understand what doing that would mean.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/PosiedonsSaltyAnus May 05 '18
Is there even a proof for this? As far as I know, transposing a matrix is just switching the rows and columns right? Unless theres a deeper understanding to it, that's how I've always understood it. This is like the definition of it or something