MHB (2s+3)([x y]) not sure exactly what we are supposed to do with the 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter karush
  • Start date Start date
karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
ok I posted this on another thread
$(2S+3T)\left(\left[\begin{array}{c}x \\ y \end{array}\right]\right)
= \left[\begin{array}{c}
2-4y \\ 6x-2y
\end{array}\right]
+3\left[\begin{array}{c}x+y \\ x-y\\2x+3y \end{array}\right]
=\left[\begin{array}{c}
2-4y \\ 6x-2y
\end{array}\right]
+\left[\begin{array}{c}3x+3y \\ 3x-3y\\6x+9y \end{array}\right]$ but the teacher said it was supposed to be $(2S+{\color{red}{\textbf{3}}})\left(\left[\begin{array}{c}x \\ y \end{array}\right]\right)$
instead ... not sure exactly what we are supposed to do with the ${\color{red}{\textbf{3}}}$
2S was formerly calculated just c/p here
 
Physics news on Phys.org
karush said:
ok I posted this on another thread
$(2S+3T)\left(\left[\begin{array}{c}x \\ y \end{array}\right]\right)
= \left[\begin{array}{c}
2-4y \\ 6x-2y
\end{array}\right]
+3\left[\begin{array}{c}x+y \\ x-y\\2x+3y \end{array}\right]
=\left[\begin{array}{c}
2-4y \\ 6x-2y
\end{array}\right]
+\left[\begin{array}{c}3x+3y \\ 3x-3y\\6x+9y \end{array}\right]$ but the teacher said it was supposed to be $(2S+{\color{red}{\textbf{3}}})\left(\left[\begin{array}{c}x \\ y \end{array}\right]\right)$
instead ... not sure exactly what we are supposed to do with the ${\color{red}{\textbf{3}}}$
2S was formerly calculated just c/p here
You are overthinking again, I think.
[math]3 \left [ \begin{matrix} x \\ y \end{matrix} \right ] = \left [ \begin{matrix} 3x \\ 3y \end{matrix} \right ] [/math]

-Dan
 
sorry had a "duh" moment:cool:
 
A better way to write "2S+ 3" is "2S+ 3I" where "I" is the identity operator, Iv= v.
 
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