Talk:Rank (linear algebra)

message: I was rather surprised by the statement in the article that the rank "is usually denoted rk(A)". So I checked some books, with the following result:
* Most books actually do not introduce a notation for the rank of a matrix.
* Five books use rank A, namely Linear Algebra and Geometry by Bloom, Topics in Matrix Analysis by Horn and Johnson, Linear Algebra by Friedberg et al., Linear Algebra by Satiste, and Berkeley Problems in Mathematics by De Souza and Silv.
* Three books use rk(A), namely Elements of Linear Algebra by Cohn, Linear Algebra by Jänich, and Linear Algebra by Kaye and Wilson.
* Two books use r(A), namely Linear Programming by Hartley, and Linear Algebra with Applications by Scheich.
I changed the article accordingly. -- Jitse Niesen 23:44, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: wow there is only seven books in existence on this subject? ;) --LeakeyJee (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rk(A) 

message: The article says There are different generalisations of the concept of rank to matrices over arbitrary rings. In those generalisations, column rank, row rank, dimension of column space and dimension of row space of a matrix may be different from the others or may not exist. It doesn't distinguish between rings and commutative rings. Is it true that the generalisation to just commutative rings also has all of these issues? (it seems likely, and if it is true I think it would be useful to mention it since it would make the statement much stronger) A5 18:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise this request is quite old now, but I also think that some more information on the definitions of rank for different classes of rings would be helpful. In my case, this is motivated by a need for information on which of these definitions cease to be equivalent for commutative rings with 1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.159.177 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ring question 

message: I think the page should mention the term "rank deficient".  MusicScience 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Term sounds familiar, and has the benefit of being self-explanatory. However, a quick Google search for 'intitle:"matrix algebra" "rank deficient"' finds only 7 distinct websites. Sources? References? Textbooks? -- JEBrown87544 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about "rank deficient" 

message: It seems like the rank is related to the condition number in that the rank describes the number of nonzero eigenvalues whereas the condition number describes the range of those eigenvalues. For practical purposes, if the eigenvalues, normalized by the largest, are (1.0, 0.9, 0.5, 1e-5, 1e-6), the rank is effectively three. Is there a page about this idea, relaxing the definition of "rank" to mean "very small eigenvalue"? Should condition number be in the see-also list on this page? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to condition number? 

message: In the article it states that the rank of A is equal to the rank of A^T.A. This is clearly false. Take for example the column matrix (1 \\ 1) over the field of two elements. Then A^T.A = (0). It's true over the reals, and the given proof only works over the reals. - Dave Benson, Aberdeen, 15 Mar 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.25.60 (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. That list probably includes more properties that are only true over the reals or complex numbers. However, I don't have intuition for matrices over other fields, so I did'nt check them all. To be sure I added a bit at the start saying that we assume that the field is R or C. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just done a substantial rewrite of the article; in particular, I think that I've checked all of the listed properties and added the qualifier to the real or complex numbers wherever it was needed.  --JBL (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  False statement 

message: Since the column rank and the row rank are always equal, they are simply called the rank of A. How can they always be equal?
They are always equal, it is indeed amazing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.157.147 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the definition correct ? 

message: Right now there's an elaborate example using row operations.  The LaTeX in this example is not very clear and the notations used are not defined in the article and are not standard.  Any suggestions for how to rewrite the example are welcome.  --JBL (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that ut is a bug of some browsers. Try changing the zoom factor of your display. D.Lazard (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Row and column operations example 

message: Why the third proof is commented out?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffamaiden (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The third proof is limited to the case of real matrices.  The proof is substantially a proof of a different result, using much more technology than is necessary or sensible to prove one of the first elementary results in linear algebra.  So I removed it.  JBL (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

text: JBL, that's absurd. The third proof is entirely equivalent to the second proof, and it conveys the same information more efficiently. I disagree with your assessment that the use of "technology" here is non-sensible. I am putting it back in. Bengski68 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  since you did not ping me, I've just seen this now.  What is absurd is to invoke the idea of a Euclidean norm in a complex space in order to prove row rank and column rank are equal (a fact that is true over any field and does not depend in any way on the existence of a norm).  Also "it's entirely equivalent to the second proof" is a good reason to remove it, not a good reason to keep it. -JBL (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with JBL that only proofs that are valid on any field must be given. However, I wonder that the simplest and the most useful proof is not mentioned in the section on proofs, although it has been given in the preceding section (use of Gaussian elimination). I'll edit the article for filling this gap. IMO, the given proofs are more confusing than useful, as they are more technical and involve less elementary. I suggest to remove them. D.Lazard (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third proof 

message: Why does numerical rank go unmentioned on Wikipedia? If A≈BC are matrices and B is a n-by-k matrix, and C is a k-by-m matrix. Then the inner dimension k is often called the numerical rank of A.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.107.106.82 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  see the section alternative definitions, where the definition you ask about is discussed under the name "decomposition rank", with a link to the article rank factorization.  Do you have a reference for the term "numerical rank"?  If so we could add it. --JBL (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about numerical rank 

message: I am wondering why the relationship between the rank of a matrix and its eigenvalues/vectors not mentioned in this page. Manoguru (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with eigenvalues 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Rank deficiency. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#Rank deficiency until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rank deficiency" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: * rank A\le r \ \Leftrightarrow \ A=\sum_{k=1}^r c_k v_k^T for some c_k\in F^m,\ v_k\in F^n. If rank A=r, you can have the vectors c_k equal to any independent columns of A.
That should be added in the section on equivalent definitions.
Likely also the row equivalent should be mentioned. --Rigmat (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is item 3 in . The second sentence is item 2 or 4. D.Lazard (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sum of 1-rank matrices (equivalent definition)