How to prove a power series of matrix is onto

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving whether a power series of a matrix, specifically the exponential map of a matrix, is onto. The context involves linear algebra and matrix theory, particularly focusing on properties of matrix exponentials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between the one-to-one nature of the matrix exponential and its onto property, questioning how to demonstrate that the exponential map is not onto. There are attempts to clarify the original problem statement and the implications of the Jordan Normal Form.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the nature of the exponential map and discussing alternative approaches to demonstrate its properties. Some guidance has been offered regarding finding elements not in the image of the map, while others express uncertainty about foundational assumptions related to the matrix exponential.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted concern regarding the lack of familiarity with the definition of the matrix exponential and its implications, as well as the challenge of proving properties without relying on the Jordan Normal Form.

happybear
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


How do I prove a power series is onto? Since I cannot calculate directly, especially I haven't learned Jodarn Normal form.




Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


By showing 1-1, I tried
∑(1/n!)[(M)^n-(N)^n]=0, what can I conclude from this step?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
M is a square matrix, so is exp(M). Thus it is one-to-one if and only if it is onto which is if and only if it is invertible.
 
Please don't send me private messages instead of answering in the thread.

From the pm, the question ought to have been written:

show that the map

exp: M_2(R) --> M_2(R)

is not onto.

This is a very different question from the one inferred from the first post.

What have you attempted.
 
Sorry about that. How can I show it is not onto, since I cannot find a B in Y, and calculate its A in X? Is there any other to prove it instead of using Jordan Normal Form
 
You are not aiming to calculate its image. Just to find one element not in its image, or some family of matrices not in its image.

Just think about the exp map for real numbers. It maps R onto the strictly positive real numbers. Now, negative matrices don't make much sense immediately, so what about the zero matrix? Can you show that is not the image.

If you don't like that, what else do you know? How about: what is exp(A)exp(-A)? Do you have any other results you can think of?
 
I understand this part. But this is follow the assumption that we know
exp(A)=[tex]\sum[/tex]1/n!(A)^n

What if we don't know this theroem. All we know this is true for A is real number, not when A is matrix, then makes it hard to prove, right
 
What? That's not an assumption so much as the definition of what the expression exp(A) means.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K