MHB Answer: Anti-Symmetric Matrix: Necessary 0's Diagonal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yankel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello

I have a small question. Is it necessary for an anti-symmetric matrix to have a 0's diagonal ?

I have this question about the dimension of 2x2 symmetric matrices vs. dimension of anti-symmetric 2x2 matrices.

The solution is that the dim(symmetric) is 3 while dim(anti-symmetric) is 1, illustrated by a matrix with a zero diagonal.

anti-symmetric is when A=-transpose(A), will only a 0's diagonal satisfy this ?

thanks !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think of this in terms of what must be on the main diagonal. You know that for an anti-symmetric matrix, $\mathbf{A}=-\mathbf{A}^{T}$. In an element-by-element fashion, you would write $A_{ij}=-A_{ji}$. But for elements on the main diagonal, $i=j$, and hence you'd have to have $A_{ii}=-A_{ii}$. What numbers do you know of that satisfy $x=-x$?
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K