Recent content by SrayD

There is no single value 'a' can take to give zero. If you multiply, numerator & denominator, by complex conjugate of the denominator to simplify, then will get two equations one for real part & other imaginary. Each requires 'a' to be different values; in fact they are negative reciprocals of...

Yes, you are right. My Apologies. Thought could use log sum formula to simplify; but it gets pretty messy.

Hi, was wondering why you are talking about partial derivatives, when there is just one variable. Unless there is more to the problem, of course. But, aside from that; you can take log of equation and fit that using least-squares. Seems easier; and no initial guess needed; like that quadratic...

Since your looking for a formula to test your algorithm, I'd go with what jedishrfu said about partitions. Where each term in the sum of a given partition is a bucket. A particular subset of all partitions of an N will give the exact answer, but no good way to pick this out; that I know of. But...

Yeah, after reading again I agree. Can have zero.

Not sure I follow exactly, but in N=5 example, have [3,2,0]. Thought all buckets need filled?

About the simplest way to see it is to work out (AB)+ + (BA)+ to get B+A+ + A+B+ then involution identity property to further simplify. Also, the zero matrix is its own Hermitian conjugate; has real eigenvalues, all zero.

PsychonautQQ You may have already figured it out, but; Don't have to cube expression after expanding c4; & it happens that product of degrees of elements just give the max possible degree for poly, it can happen to be less than that when roots span common subspace. Once you have only elements...

PysychonautQQ is a pretty cool gamer tag. Almost did not see this before I left work; no internet connection available where I live; not yet anyway. But, towards your question. Yeah it does not always work so well, but it's good to check if method will work since it goes pretty quick. Gonna try...

Hey, PsychonautQQ; side question are you fan of the game Psychonauts? Been longtime since I played, your name reminded me. Anyway, saw your post. It brought back memories from abstract algebra class & all the confusion/over-working with finding minimal polys over a ring and/or field. The...

I think this has gotten out of hand and not benefiting Rectifier. I apologize if I upset anyone. Also, never said book is "terrible", said the notation for this problem was horrible; especially for those just learning the material. Any slights were imagined.

Sorry, meant just Rectifier, not Rectifier42.

I will have to disagree with you about notation. Yeah of course the symbols '1', '2', etc are not integers in this case, well they are through a homomorphism of course. Also, you have to go with some abstract notation on this one. Your adjoining a new element to extend the base field, that is...

The problem is bad notation on the books part; should never use numeric symbols e.g. 2 & 3. Because the solution is adding a new element that solves the polynomial x^2 + x +1 = 0; which 2 & 3 do not, looking mod 2 or 4. The book is using '2' & '3' not as usual 2 & 3. With there notation, '2'...

Sorry, is it a assignment question or a personal exploration problem?