Thursday, November 16, 2006
Growing Pains
I started off the quarter enrolled in this statistical learning class, where they actually meant it when they said "strong background in linear algebra and statistics required." It literally killed me; hit me like a big, yellow school bus -- partly because the class was in the ECE department (and they take their math a lot more seriously than we do), and partly because, for some reason, I fail to be proficient at any kind of math learned after the eighth grade. After two painful iterations of problem sets and then handing in a practically blank midterm, my advisor and I agreed that it was probably best to drop the class and spend the time filling in the holes of my not-so-glamorous math career instead: a big relief, but also a huge disappointment at the same time.
However, the class did introduce me to what a deeper understanding of linear algebra should look like. Contrary to what I was taught in undergrad, linear algebra is more than just a nifty way to solve a system of linear equations that you otherwise could have done using techniques learned from middle-school algebra. It's even more than just learning the mechanics of matrix multiplication, eigenvector calculations, or following X number of steps to determine if some matrix is invertible. In fact, it seems as though I completely missed (or forgot?) the whole *point* of linear algebra in the first place, and am lacking a huge chunk of geometric intuition as a result.
I see more clearly now that (one of?) the over-arching purpose of linear algebra is to provide a means for elegantly organizing and operating on numbers in higher dimensions. Throughout undergrad, we were always used to working with scalars: x or y or z, with each variable representing a single number along the 1-dimensional number line. We could intuitively do all sorts of operations on these numbers: add/multiply, solve for unknowns, take derivatives/integrals, etc. But when we begin considering points in higher-dimensions, these methods break down because a point can longer be represented by a single number. Even in our friendly 2-dimensional space, with x and y axes, we now need two numbers, an x and y "coordinate", to identify a particular point in this space.
The use of linear algebra allows us to easily extend our ability to work in 1-dimensional space, all the way to n-dimensional space, even when we are not physically capable of visualizing these structures in high dimensions. It's a pretty simple (and perhaps obvious) idea to grasp, but it was a subtle revelation to me as I have been observing how the tools of linear algebra come into play in the larger framework of machine learning concepts and algorithms for high-dimensionality reduction (which is what my advisor specializes in -- more on that later). It's pretty mind-blowing, and I look forward to the day when I can just "see" these glorious planes and spaces running through what appears to be sets of seemingly unrelated numbers, filed neatly into rows and columns.
Until then, I will be slaving away at these linear algebra lectures, re-learning undergrad-level linear algebra, and trying to figure out why, after all those years of asian-nerdiness-extra-math-homework-rampage, I still pee my pants everytime I see an integral. My bitterness toward the leniency of math requirements in computer science curriculums at american colleges can be saved for another day, but most importantly, the take-home message is this, kids: eat your wheaties and learn your linear algebra, and all will be well in machine learning land.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Go Diane! Show those matrices who's boss.
Linear algebra didn't sink in for me the first time, either. I don't think it really makes sense until you have to apply it to something concrete, and then you get intuition for what all these weird operations actually mean. After that it's actually kind of neat.
Good luck, hope you're enjoying grad school (in spite of the occasional stumble)!
-Brandon
Post a Comment