Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
Online Users
There are 106 users online: 5 members, 69 guests and 32 bots.
Members: alanclem, flintymcqwerty, hellninjas, HOMER-16, lafferjm.
Bots: VoilaBot (3), Spinn3r (1), Magpie Crawler (3), VoilaBot (7), Googlebot (17), MSN/Bing (1).
SAX
This is an archived, read-only copy of the United-TI subforum , including posts and topic from May 2003 to April 2012. If you would like to discuss any of the topics in this forum, you can visit Cemetech's Technology & Calculator Open Topic subforum. Some of these topics may also be directly-linked to active Cemetech topics. If you are a Cemetech member with a linked United-TI account, you can link United-TI topics here with your current Cemetech topics.

Math and Science => Technology & Calculator Open Topic
Author Message
simonzack

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 71

 Posted: 18 Apr 2008 07:28:16 pm    Post subject: I got some problems in linear algebra, the rest were easy, but I just couldn't solve one, maybe I need more practice... It goes like this: for square matrix A, if |A|=-1, transpose(A)=invert(A), then prove that |I+A|=0 Can anybody please help me? Thanks
alexrudd
pm me if you read this

Bandwidth Hog

Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 2335

 Posted: 18 Apr 2008 10:31:50 pm    Post subject: I think I have it figured out for 2x2 matrices, but since my approach was analytical and not grounded in theories of matrices I can't scale it up to n x n. I'm using the calculator's formatting for matrices since it's familiar and doens't require whitespace. Let's say A = [a,b] [c,d] Given |A| = -1, you know ad-bc=-1. (1) A-1 can be calculated since you know the determinant. [-d,b] [c,-a] AT is trivial to calculate, too. [a,c] [b,d] Now we can see that a=-d, and c=b. Let's use this information with our original information from the determinant (1) to rewrite it with only two variables. -a2-b2=-1, or a*a+b*b=1 The only way this is possible is if a=±1 and b = 0, or the other way around. This means our matrix must be either [±1,0] [0,∓1] (case 1) or [0,±1] [±1,0] (case 2) Add I to case 1. [1±1, 0] [0, 1∓] The determinant is then going to be (1∓1)*(1∓1) - 0*0, which will be 0 Add I to case 2 [1,±1] [±1,1] This determinant is (±1)2-12, which is also 0. **** I am almost certain that I will feel rather dumb soon when someone else posts a simpler answer that's actually a proof and works with sizes greater than 2x2. What the hell, it was an interesting thinking exercise.
simonzack

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 71

 Posted: 18 Apr 2008 10:45:10 pm    Post subject: Yeah, thanks for the reply, I got it for 2*2 matrices as well like your method, but I don't think it's easy to be scaled up to get the general form of n*n, as for each matrix A, it's child (think that's what its called) B transpose(A) doesn't have to equal inverse(A) Edit: so, urr, any hints or solutions?Last edited by Guest on 19 Apr 2008 02:39:51 am; edited 1 time in total
CoBB

Active Member

Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 720

Posted: 19 Apr 2008 05:47:20 am    Post subject:

 alexrudd wrote: a*a+b*b=1 The only way this is possible is if a=±1 and b = 0, or the other way around.

That’s not true. The equation is satisfied for any x if you define a = sin(x) and b = cos(x).

I can’t really think of a simple proof at the moment. You have to realise that if AT = A-1, then A is an orthogonal matrix, and its determinant can only be 1 (rotation) or -1 (rotoinversion) without giving any more constraints. It is possible to find a matrix P (a linear transformation) that transforms A into a canonical (diagonal) form D: PAP-1=D. D has non-zero elements only in its main diagonal, either in 2x2 elementary rotation blocks or just solitary ±1s (identities or reflections). I+A is a polynomial of A, therefore it is left intact by the transformation P: I+A=P-1(I+D)P (this is easy to verify by simple substitution). Using the basic property of determinants that |A||B|=|AB| we can see that |I+A|=|I+D|, and also that |A|=|D|. Since |D|=-1, at least one of its 2x2 blocks must have a determinant of -1 or its diagonal must contain a -1 somewhere. Therefore, adding the identity matrix to it will introduce a zero factor that will make the determinant of the sum (I+D) zero, and we’re done.

If this is over the top, read up on orthogonal matrices and diagonalisation.
simonzack

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 71

 Posted: 19 Apr 2008 06:11:43 am    Post subject: wow, thanks for the solution the book I was reading hasn't introduced orthogonal matrices at all, so i didn't know anything about them , but i think its got to be somewhere in the later chapters I've checked on them, and took some stuff in now. Thanks
 Display posts from previous: All Posts Oldest FirstNewest First
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

»
 Page 1 of 1 » All times are GMT - 5 Hours

© Copyright 2000-2013 Cemetech & Kerm Martian :: Page Execution Time: 0.025771 seconds.