Adjoint versus classical adjoint/any relation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter arthurhenry
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classical Relation
arthurhenry
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
is there relation between the adjoint (as in conjugate transpose) and the adjoint of a matrix(each entry replaced by the its cofactor and one takes the transpose of the resulting matrix)
Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not that I know of.

Adjoint meaning each entry replaced by the its cofactor and one takes the transpose of the resulting matrix is normally now called adjugate to avoid confusion.

Adjoint meaning complex conjugate and transpose of a matrix can be hugely generalised and naturally appears anytime you have maps on a linear space.
 

Thread '##(A/\mathfrak{a})_{\mathfrak{p}/\mathfrak{a}}## and its isomorphism?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Questions about non existence of GCDs vs (coimages, cokernels)'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Trouble understanding an online solution to an exercise in Dummit & Foote'

##\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...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Hilbert-adjoint operator vs self-adjoint operator
Replies
2
Views
2K
Adjoint representation vs the adjoint of a matrix
Replies
1
Views
2K
What is the connection between cofactors, determinants, and matrix inverses?
Replies
8
Views
2K
I Adjoint Representation Confusion
Replies
3
Views
3K
A In what representation do Dirac adjoint spinors lie?
Replies
1
Views
3K
A Trace of the inverse of matrix products
Replies
2
Views
2K
I How to find admissible functions for a domain?
Replies
4
Views
1K
A Are there two different adjoint representations used in the SM?
Replies
9
Views
2K
A Diagonalizing Hermitian matrices with adjoint representation
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Spectral theorem for Hermitian matrices-- special cases
Replies
2
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top