I have been reading some of the answers here that if two vector fields are isomorphic, then they are "essentially the same".
For example, an answer here:What does "isomorphic" mean in linear algebra?
Because isomorphic vector spaces are the same size and have the same algebraic properties, mathematicians think of them as "the same, for all intents and purposes."
Now when you read it the first time, it is pretty impressive. But when you are sitting down and doing a problem. You are wondering just exactly what it means. What algebraic properties are the same? What do you mean by size? What does it mean by "the same, for all intents and purposes". Can someone please concretify this notion using the following example?
Claim: An isomorphism between symmetric matrices $S^{n \times n}$ and $R^{n^2}$ is given by map $F = vectorize(A)$
Where given $A = \begin{bmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} \end{bmatrix}$, vectorize(A) gives $\begin{bmatrix} a_{11} \\ a_{12} \\ a_{21}\\ a_{22} \end{bmatrix}$
Ok, this is a nice math trick. But so what? Ok so there is an invertible map. What does that imply about the algebraic properties of the two vector spaces?
Examples of isomorphic vector spaces:
$V_{xy} = \{(x, y, 0) : x, y \in \Bbb R\} \subseteq \Bbb R^3$
$V_{xz} = \{(x, 0, z) : x, z \in \Bbb R\} \subseteq \Bbb R^3$
$V_{yz} = \{(0, y, z) : y, z \in \Bbb R\} \subseteq \Bbb R^3$
You wrote:
That's the spirit! Are you amazed and dumb-founded that all of these planes are "the same" vector space? No, of course not! And you shouldn't be! Why should it matter what two-dimensional subspace of $\Bbb R^3$ we're looking at? It shouldn't; they're all just $\Bbb R^2$ in disguise! And the same with one-dimensional subspaces (except they're $\Bbb R$ in disguise). This is isomorphism at its finest.
Yes, "isomorphism" is a fancy word. But the idea isn't, it is just "sameness" codified. Isomorphisms are usually pretty boring, because of the essential sameness. There's no need to think isomorphism is the best thing since sliced bread.
Or get excited, that's good too! Should someone who collects baseball cards work to acquire multiple copies of every card? Of course not, because they're all "the same" (isomorphic as baseball cards). So too with mathematicians and vector spaces; if you like less work (free understanding once an isomorphism is exhibited) you should like isomorphism.
Sometimes it isn't immediately as boring. Ordered pairs of real numbers, complex numbers, and expressions of the form $a + bx$ are all "the same" (isomorphic as two-dimensional vector spaces over $\Bbb R$), if we only add and multiply by real numbers. But we usually learn about linear expressions first, then complex numbers, then the vector-space structure (not just as points, but things that can be added and scaled) of the $xy$-plane. Some people handle them all differently until they realize they're all "the same" (some people never reach this point) and some people intuitively grasp it before (if ever) hearing about isomorphisms.
Fancier examples exist (binary numbers and subsets, for example).