Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Doesn't matter. We already didn't have a unique inverse, but it's perfectly possible to find a left pseudoinverse and a right pseudoinverse, bearing in mind that they're not unique.

Though thinking about it more, it seems like the outer-product-inverse of a vector (a) must be unique if it exists; and (b) is highly unlikely to exist.

> 1xN multiplied with Nx1 yields a scalar (that's actually the 'usual' dot-product/scalar product/whatever you call it)

I'm aware of this, but there are two ways we might conceive of an "inverse":

- Since a vector is a matrix, the inverse of a vector might be defined by matrix multiplication, where A is the inverse of B if AB is "the" identity matrix. This is only strictly defined for square matrices, but the pseudoinverse concept extends it to nonsquare matrices.

- Or, we could go for a more basic sense of "multiplicative inverse", where the concept is that if AB = C, then B = A⁻¹C. This is what I was thinking of when saying that the concept of an inverse doesn't make sense when multiplication is the inner product - if I give you a vector v, and its inner product with some other vector u, there is no way of recovering what u was.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: