MHB 11.3 Give the matrix in standard basis

karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
We define the application $T:P_2\rightarrow P_2$ by
$$T(p)=(x^2+1)p''(x)-xp'(x)+2p'(x)$$
1. Give the matrix $\displaystyle\left[T\right]_\infty^\infty$ in the standard basis $\alpha=(x^2,x,1)$
2 Give the matrix $\displaystyle\left[T\right]_\infty^\infty$ where $\beta=\{x^2+x+1,x+1,1\}$

would this be

$\left[\begin{array}{c}1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right]$
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you see that \begin{pmatrix}a & b & c \\ d & e & f \\ g & h & i\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}a \\ d \\ g\end{pmatrix},
that \begin{pmatrix}a & b & c \\ d & e & f \\ g & h & i\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}b \\ e \\ h\end{pmatrix},
and \begin{pmatrix}a & b & c \\ d & e & f \\ g & h & i\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}c \\ f \\ i\end{pmatrix}?

That is, applying the linear transformation to the vectors in the ordered basis, in turn, gives you the columns of the matrix.

Here the linear transformation is T(p)= (x^2+ 1)p''(x)- xp'(x)+ 2p(x) (you have "2p'(x) but that looks suspicious. If that were correct why wouldn't it be "(2- x)p'(x)"?) and, in the first problem, the basis vectors are x^2,x, and 1. T(x^2)= (x^2+ 1)(2)- x(2x)+ 2x^2=x^2+ 1. That would be represented by the column matrix \begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 0 \\ 1\end{pmatrix} and that is the first column of the matrix. T(x)=(x^2+ 1)(0)- x(1)+ 2(x)= x which is represented by the column matrix \begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 2 \\ 0\end{pmatrix} and that is the second column of the matrix. Finally, T(1)= (x^2+ 1)(0)- x(0)+ 2(1)= 2 which is represented by the column matrix \begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 2\end{pmatrix} and that is the third column of the matrix. The matrix representation of T in this ordered basis is \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 2 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 2 \end{pmatrix}.

In the second problem the ordered basis vectors are x^2+ x+ 1, x+1. and 1. T(x^2+ x+ 1)= (x^2+ 1)(2)- x(2x+ 1)+ 2(x^2+ x+ 1)= 2x^2+ 2- 2x^2- x+ 2x^2+ 2x+ 2= 2x^2+ x+ 4. But now we have to write that in terms of this basis. That is, we need to find a, b, and c so that a(x^2+ x+ 1)+ b(x+ 1)+ c(1)= ax^2+ (a+ b)x+ (a+ b+ c)= 2x^2+ x+ 4. We have a= 2, a+ b= 2+ b= 1 so b= -1 and a+ b+ c= 2- 1+ c= 1+ c= 4 so c= 3. The first column of the matrix is \begin{pmatrix} 2 \\ -1 \\ 3 \end{pmatrix}. T(x+ 1)= (x^2+ 1)(0)- x(1)+ 2(x+ 1)= x+ 1. Well that's easy! x+ 1= 0(x^2+ x+ 1)+ 1(x+ 1)+ 0(1) so the second column of the matrix is \begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 1 \\ 0\end{pmatrix}. T(1)= (x^2+ 1)(0)- x(0)+ 2(1)= 2. That can be written 2= 0(x^2+ x+ 1)+ 0(x+ 1)+ 2 which corresponds to the column matrix \begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 2\end{pmatrix}. The matrix representing T in this ordered matrix is \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 1 & 0 \\ 3 & 0 & 2\end{pmatrix}.
 
I deeply appreciate the extended explanation
that helped quite a bit...

examples from books sometimes assume way too much

that is where MHB has filled in the best

Mahalo
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...

Similar threads

Back
Top