Great question—this is a classic deep dive into how linear algebra generalizes beyond the 2D matrices we learn first. Let’s break this down step by step:

1. Yes, We Absolutely Can Extend to 3D Arrays (and Beyond!) #

What you’re describing is exactly a third-order tensor (tensors are the generalizations of scalars, vectors, matrices, etc., to arbitrary dimensions). A 2D matrix is a second-order tensor, indexed by two indices (i,j); a 3D tensor adds a third index (i,j,k), which you can think of as a stack of matrices, or a grid where each element lives at the intersection of three axes.

Practically, these show up all over the place:

• In machine learning, convolutional kernels are often 3D tensors (input channels × output channels × spatial dimensions).
• In physics, piezoelectric tensors (relating electric field to mechanical strain) are third-order tensors.
• In signal processing, 3D tensors represent video data (time × height × width).

2. 3D Tensors Bring Way More Structural Richness #

Absolutely—this higher-dimensional structure lets us model relationships that 2D matrices can’t capture natively:

• Multi-linear mappings: A 2D matrix represents a linear transformation between two vector spaces (V → W). A third-order tensor can represent a bilinear transformation (V × W → U), meaning it takes two vectors as input and outputs a third, while preserving linearity in each input separately.
• Flexible operations: Unlike matrices, which have one primary multiplication rule, 3D tensors support multiple types of tensor contraction (the generalization of matrix multiplication). For example, you could contract along the first and third indices, or the second and third—each contraction models a different kind of interaction between the dimensions.
• Powerful decompositions: Tensors have unique decomposition methods like CP Decomposition (breaking the tensor into a sum of outer products of vectors) and Tucker Decomposition (using core tensors and factor matrices). These decompositions reveal multi-dimensional patterns that standard matrix decompositions (like SVD) miss, since flattening a tensor into a matrix erases the cross-dimensional relationships.

3. Are 3D Tensors Essentially Equivalent to 2D Matrices? #

Short answer: No, not as algebraic structures—though they share vector space equivalence.

Here’s the nuance:

• As vector spaces, any 3D tensor of size n×m×p is isomorphic to an nmp×1 vector (or an n×mp matrix, if you flatten it). That means you can map every element of the tensor to a matrix entry, and vice versa, without losing information about individual elements.
• But as algebraic objects with operations, they’re not equivalent. Matrices form a ring under addition and multiplication—there’s a consistent, well-defined way to multiply two matrices that plays nicely with addition. 3D tensors don’t have a single, universal multiplication rule; the way you combine them depends on which dimensions you contract, and different contractions lead to different algebraic behaviors.
• Additionally, tensor rank (a measure of how "simple" the tensor is) is far more complex than matrix rank. Matrix rank is unique and easy to compute, but third-order tensors can have multiple ranks depending on the decomposition method, and computing tensor rank is NP-hard in general.

In short: You can flatten a 3D tensor into a matrix, but you’ll lose the structural context that makes tensors useful for modeling multi-dimensional relationships. Tensors are their own distinct mathematical objects with richer capabilities than 2D matrices.

内容的提问来源于stack exchange，提问作者user2277550