MHB According to Buckingham Theorem the rank of A should be 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    rank Theorem
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

A physical system is described by a law of the form $f(E,P,A)=0$, where $E,P,A$ represent, respectively, energy, pressure and surface area. Find an equivalent physical law that relates suitable dimensionless quantities.

That' what I have tried so far:

1st step:


Choice of quantities


Mass: $M$

Time: $T$

Length: $L$

So:

$$[E]=M L^2 T^{-2}$$
$$[P]=ML^{-1}T^{-2}$$
$$[A]=L^2$$2nd step:

Construction of dimonsionless quantities
The matrix of dimensions:$A=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
-2 & -2 & 0 \\
2 & -1 &2
\end{bmatrix}$I tried to find the rank, determining the smallest $n$ for which $A^n=I$.$\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
-2 & -2 & 0 \\
2 & -1 &2
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
-2 & -2 & 0 \\
2 & -1 &2
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & -1 & 0\\
2 & 2 & 0 \\
8 & 2 &4
\end{bmatrix}$$\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & -1 & 0\\
2 & 2 & 0 \\
8 & 2 &4
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
-2 & -2 & 0 \\
2 & -1 &2
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
-2 & -2 & 0 \\
12 & 0 &8
\end{bmatrix}$But I saw the solution and there should be only one dimensionless quantity, so according to Buckingham Theorem the rank of $A$ should be $2$.

Where is my mistake? (Thinking)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey! (Smile)

evinda said:
I tried to find the rank, determining the smallest $n$ for which $A^n=I$.

Isn't that the order of $A$ instead of the rank of $A$? (Wondering)
The rank of $A$ is indeed $2$.
 
I like Serena said:
Isn't that the order of $A$ instead of the rank of $A$? (Wondering)

What is the difference between order and rank? (Thinking)
I like Serena said:
The rank of $A$ is indeed $2$.

Because of the fact that there are two linearly dependent rows? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
What is the difference between order and rank? (Thinking)

In algebra the order of an element $a$ is the lowest power $n$ such that $a^n=id$.

The rank of a matrix is the dimension of its range. (Nerd)
Because of the fact that there are two linearly dependent rows? (Thinking)

Yes. (Nod)

More specifically, there are 2 linearly independent column vectors.
The range of the matrix is the span of those 2 vectors, meaning that range has dimension 2. (Emo)
 
I like Serena said:
In algebra the order of an element $a$ is the lowest power $n$ such that $a^n=id$.

The rank of a matrix is the dimension of its range. (Nerd)

A ok... (Nod)

I like Serena said:
Yes. (Nod)

More specifically, there are 2 linearly independent column vectors.
The range of the matrix is the span of those 2 vectors, meaning that range has dimension 2. (Emo)

So could we say that the following two vectors
$\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
-2\\
-1
\end{pmatrix} , \begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
2
\end{pmatrix}$ span the vector space of the matrix? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
So could we say that the following two vectors
$\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
-2\\
-1
\end{pmatrix} , \begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
2
\end{pmatrix}$ span the vector space of the matrix? (Thinking)

Yes. (Nod)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top