MHB Creating Linearly Dependent Square Matrix from Cam Mechanism Equation

Barbudania
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have an equation that comes from an especific topic of cam mechanisms and it goes like this:

$$
2M[tan(B)-B] - \beta Ntan(B) - 2\pi\sqrt{1 - N^2} = 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (1)
$$

For this it doesn't matter what each variable means.

I'm trying to create a 3x3 matrix with a determinant equal to zero. The determinant is linearly dependent because I will create a nomogram from it and its vectors have to be on the same plane.

I did come up with this answer:

$$
det \begin{bmatrix} tan(B) & 2\pi\sqrt{1 - N^2} & tan(B) - B \\ 1 & -\beta N & 0 \\ 0 & 2M & 1 \end{bmatrix} = 0\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (2)
$$

I can manipulate the matrix in order not to change the determinant and it becomes this:

$$
det \begin{bmatrix} Ntan(B) & 2\pi\sqrt{1 - N^2} & tan(B) - B \\ 1 & -\beta & 0 \\ 0 & 2M & 1 \end{bmatrix} = 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (3)
$$

The way the matrix is written is important because each variable is in a different row. When I create the nomogram, I will have 2 linear axes and a grid. I can have up to two variables in one row. So in this determinant I have B and N in the first row, $\beta$ in the second row and M in the third row.

However this does not solve my problem as I need. What I really need is to create a determinant where variables M and N are in the same row and $\beta$ and B on the other rows.

I've created about 10 different matrices, but I can never create one with this especific condition. I don't know if it's not possible or if I just couldn't find the answer.

It doesn't have to be a determinant straight out of the equation like Eq (2) where you can look at it and see that it will create Eq (1). One could develop a determinant, manipulate it and then arrive at the answer, just like I manipulated Eq (2) into Eq (3).

Can anybody come up with an answer? Or perhaps, is there any methodology, theorem or something else to help me create this apart from trial and error? Is there at least a way for me to know if what I want is impossible?
(actually if someone could find a solution, I would gladly ask the person if he/she wants to be a co-author on a paper I'm working on)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Barbudania,

Assuming I've understood your post correctly, I think we can accomplish what you're looking for in the following way:

  1. Assuming $\beta\neq 0$, multiply both sides of equation (2) above by $1/\beta$ to get $$\det\begin{bmatrix}\tan(B) & 2\pi\sqrt{1-N^{2}} & \tan(B) - B\\ \frac{1}{\beta} & -N & 0\\ 0 & 2M & 1 \end{bmatrix} = 0.$$
  2. Use the fact that the determinant of the transpose of a matrix is equal to the determinant of the matrix; i.e., $\det(A) = \det(A^{T})$. Taking the transpose -- i.e., make the rows of the matrix the columns of the matrix -- of the matrix from step 1, we get: $$\det\begin{bmatrix}\tan(B) & \frac{1}{\beta} & 0\\ 2\pi\sqrt{1-N^{2}} & -N & 2M\\ \tan(B)-B & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} = 0.$$
Is this form acceptable for your purposes?
 
Hi there, thank you for your help, but it doesn't solve the problem.
In your answer, you have the variable B in the first and third row. The thing is that a variable can't be in two different rows, I don't know if I didn't make it clear in my post.
 
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...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top