Construct a 2x2 matrix that expresses a given transformation

Aleoa
Messages
128
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


I have to costruct a 2x2 matrix so that :

Schermata 2018-04-16 10:05:27.png

The Attempt at a Solution



M =\begin{bmatrix}<br /> a &amp; b\\ c &amp;d<br /> \end{bmatrix}

Using the first bond i got : c+2d = 2a+4b (1)
using the second bond : d = -b (2)

And then, as a nilpotent matrix has det = 0 and tr = 0, i got

a+d-2=0 (3)
ad-a-d+1=bc (4)

The problem comes here, i get 4 equations with 4 variables, but the 4th equation is not linear, in fact it's a second order equation.
Is it possible that in a linear algebra problem i get an equation that's not linear , or i made some errors ?
 

Attachments

  • Schermata 2018-04-16 10:05:27.png
    Schermata 2018-04-16 10:05:27.png
    6.8 KB · Views: 685
Physics news on Phys.org
Aleoa said:
i get 4 equations with 4 variables
But your equation (1) is in fact two equations:
## a+2b = 1 \ \& \ c+2d = 2 \ ##. So you don't worry about your eq (4) which is in fact the 5th equation (luckily :rolleyes: it is satisfied).

Linear algebra has plenty higher order equations: think e.g. of finding eigenvalues.
 
  • Like
Likes Aleoa
BvU said:
But your equation (1) is in fact two equations:
## a+2b = 1 \ \& \ c+2d = 2 \ ##. So you don't worry about your eq (4) which is in fact the 5th equation (luckily :rolleyes: it is satisfied).

Linear algebra has plenty higher order equations: think e.g. of finding eigenvalues.

But... if i try to solve the system of equations (1),(2),(3) I can't find a unique solution. Only if i add the fourth equation is can find it.

ps : It could have happened, that in an exercise like the one i posted, the intersection beetween the 3 linear equation with the second order equation gives multiple solutions ?
 
Last edited:
Aleoa said:
But... if i try to solve the system of equations (1),(2),(3) I can't find a unique solution
Of course. You have lost one equation by writing " c+2d = 2a+4b "
instead of ##\ \ ## " ##\ \ ##c+2d = 2 ##\ \ ## and ##\ \ ##a+2b = 1 ##\ \ ## "

I wrote
BvU said:
luckily :rolleyes: it is satisfied
for equation 5. I leave it to you to prove that the solution of { (1a), (1b), (2), (3) } satisfies equation 5. There must be a good reason for that -- I don't believe in lucky coincidences.
 
BvU said:
But your equation (1) is in fact two equations:
## a+2b = 1 \ \& \ c+2d = 2 \ ##. So you don't worry about your eq (4) which is in fact the 5th equation (luckily :rolleyes: it is satisfied).

Linear algebra has plenty higher order equations: think e.g. of finding eigenvalues.
BvU said:
Of course. You have lost one equation by writing " c+2d = 2a+4b "
instead of ##\ \ ## " ##\ \ ##c+2d = 2 ##\ \ ## and ##\ \ ##a+2b = 1 ##\ \ ## "

I wrote
for equation 5. I leave it to you to prove that the solution of { (1a), (1b), (2), (3) } satisfies equation 5. There must be a good reason for that -- I don't believe in lucky coincidences.

Perfect, now my error is clear. The only thing i don't understand is how intuitively deduce that the 5th is already satisfied ( without doing the calculations)
 
I have the same problem o0)
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top