But by that line of reasoning, couldn’t we just as well do the following:
Again, I have (2,32,32) and want (6,30,30). I omit the data dimensions, append 1 in front and have (1 x 2) . (2 x 6) => (1 x 6). Again, I remove 1 and end up with (6). In this way we would’ve kept the order of input-dimension first, output-dimension second for the kernel/layer-weights, identical to when you actually define a layer. Why do it the other way around?