Talk:Fundamental theorem of linear algebra

Rewrote the page in terms of the SVD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.67.87.126 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the notation "U^+" used in the article (under the basis column)? Thanks. 99.236.122.76 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is certainly an old-fashioned way of discussing something - not exactly clear in the notation: probably the general linear mapping, and its effect on the dual spaces. It will need some reconciliation with the rest of the linear algebra pages.

Charles Matthews 07:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, just for the record, I wrote that table myself and did not just copy it out of a textbook, so no copyvio issues here. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 18:48, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think this needs researched just a bit. The August 2005 issue of Focus by the Mathematical Association of America discusses some candidates for the Fundamental Theorem of Linear Algebra. Whatever textbook this theorem came out of is quite possibly an author's whim and not a generally accepted term.

It's Gilbert Strang who calls it that, but he seems to have convinced other people to call it this as well. Swap (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Column space/LDU decomposition

Shouldn't the column space be related to the columns L. Something like: P^{-1} times the first r columns of L?

Further: is it sensible to use LDU to define the four subspaces? Not better the SVD? One problem in the article is, that it states, that entries in D are non-decreasing, but that doesn't make sense, since the entries can be positive and negative. What is wanted here is certainly that the nonzero ones come first and then all the zeros. The SVD would clearly make this easier, obviating also the need for a permutation matrix. 134.169.77.186 (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opaque

This article seems very opaque, even when I already know something about the subject - perhaps something could be done to make it more friendly to those who do not know a lot about the subject already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.247.134 (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fundamental theorem is not even stated. Moreover, the article involves orthogonal complement, which implies that the fundamental theorem does not exists for vector spaces that do not have a dot product. I guess that the fundamental theorem is nothing else than the isomorphism theorem for vector spaces. I have tagged the article for warning the readers of this mess. D.Lazard (talk) 11:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]