Linear Algebra Done Right Video Series
youtube.com
youtube.com
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVF...
He makes the software used to create the animations and it's open-source: https://github.com/3b1b/manim
Note that these references have a more "abstract" viewpoint (e.g focusing on "coordinate-free" methods, such as linear operators as opposed to matries as the fundamental object) than that advocated and taught by Strang. I do not know in the end which is better for an absolute beginner. All I can guarantee is that the abstract viewpoint is definitely needed and far more useful for anyone using math beyond its basics. This includes (but is not limited to) machine learning and optimization.
The point of the abstraction not being to have an abstraction, but to give intuition to the otherwise pointless-seeming calculations.
1) Lax leaves significant results to the problems, and the result is that there is little explanation of their importance.
2) Lax prefers short, mathematically impressive proofs which leverage the mathematics he has developed in the book to that point. But the proofs do not help in understanding.
3) Lax relies heavily on determinants and characteristic polynomials to prove major results. Axler deliberately avoids them, and he says why in the introduction too!
Axler and Lax have two diametrically opposed approaches to linear algebra pedagogy. Neither is "wrong" but in my experience Axler's is much better for learning and Lax's is better for a deeper understanding (and for a different approach).
Not really on topic, but I would like to use this opportunity to express gratitude to the HN community - although this forum is mostly tech-centric, it is wonderful to see things like this post get interest and discussion.
I agree. I'm really glad this was only posted on a weekend because now I'll have to spend the day watching all the videos. Awesome stuff.
With the notes I used in the latter class I felt I gained a very deep understanding in return for my efforts, especially because they went into Complexification and bilinear/sesquilinear forms which gave me a really strong intuition on the geometry of matrix representations both real and complex. If I remember correctly, Lax didn't really focus on those concepts
Not that Lax is a bad book but I feel like Lax's Linear Algebrs is actually a sneaky way of familiarizing the reader with formalisms they'll encounter in later, more abstract material, so maybe better for students who are already comfortable with a certain amount of abstraction so they're able to gain enough to leverage it later but not necessarily for a truly introductory class.
It was a tough course for 1st year freshmen (almost as difficult as mathematical analysis), due to its abstract nature, but I was grateful for that in the end.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-06-linear-algebra...
3blue1brown's video series explained this beautifully as, when the inverse doesn't exist, the transformation packs the input into a lower dimensional space. So in communication terms the transmitted signal is completely lost anyway. So we should look for a better channel to communicate.
Now needless to say there is a lot I am probably wrong about, but I'm still very grateful for that excellent video series.
Second, if you crave for applications, check out this free linear algebra book: Linear Algebra Done Wrong by Serge Treil (https://www.math.brown.edu/~treil/papers/LADW/LADW.html)
His book has a lot of applications, and has been written as a response to Axler's book, which does not (even though I think that Axler's way is the best).
Finally, No Bullshit Guide to Linear Algebra tries to do exactly what you want: the presentation aims to be
(I)here's a concept (II)here's a real-world application
The book is here: https://gumroad.com/l/noBSLA, $29
(I found out about this book on Hackernews, which seems to be a pretty decent place for such things)
Theory beats practice, because without theory there is no practice.