Hi all i need a little help with Jordan form

  • Thread starter Thread starter panoskarti
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Hi
AI Thread Summary
The user has diagonalized the matrix A and obtained the Jordan form J as J=[-1 0 0; 0 2 1; 0 0 2]. They seek clarification on calculating e^Jt, specifically the first row's elements, due to confusion from a mathematics book. The corrected matrix for e^Jt is proposed as [[e^-t, t*e^t, 1/2*t^2*e^t], [0, e^2t, t*e^t], [0, 0, e^2t]]. The user is uncertain about the accuracy of the elements in the first row. The discussion highlights the complexities of matrix exponentiation in the context of Jordan forms.
panoskarti
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
ok this is my problem...
i have diagonalized the A matrix with the equation P^-1*A*P
and the result is J=[-1 0 0;0 2 1; 0 0 2]. in order to find the e^Jt do i need to do the following? =>


[-e^t t*e^t 1/2*t^2 *e^t

0 2*e^t t*e^t

0 0 2*e^t]


I am not sure about the 2 and 3 elements in the first row of the matrix since i have zeros at the J matrix but a mathematics book confused me..

Thanks in advance..
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
i did a mistake this is the matrix..

[e^-t t*e^t 1/2*t^2 *e^t

0 e^2t t*e^t

0 0 e^2t ]
 
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top