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.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K