I need to transpose for the value of Q

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rodo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transpose Value
Rodo
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
B=PRn-Q(Rn-1)/R-1

Mod note: This thread is closed. @Rodo, this appears to be homework that is misplaced, with no effort shown. You are welcome to repost in the Homework & Coursework section, but you need to use the homework template and show what you have tried.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Rodo said:
B=PRn-Q(Rn-1)/R-1
Do you want to solve for Q or what?
 
Do you mean "solve for Q" (not "transpose")? The word "transpose" has quite a different meaning in Linear Algebra than it does in "ordinary algebra. And is that last -1 under the fraction sign? That is, Do you mean Q(Rn- 1)/(R- 1)?
And why is this in "Linear and Abstract Algebra"? Are these matrices? If so how are you defining that division by either R or R- 1?

If the letters just represent numbers (and so this should be in "General Math", not "Linear and Abstract Algebra"- of course, if you are just taking basic "algebra" you would not know what "Linear Algebra" and "Linear Algebra" are. It's a common mistake), then solve
B=PR^n-Q(R^n-1)/R-1 by
(1) Add 1 to both sides
(2) Add PR^n to both sides
(3) Multiply both sides by R
(4) Divide both sides by R^n- 1,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please make a question. Posting just a formula without explaining anything is like answering:
Q= AB + C
 
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