Inverse of a Matrix - Understanding Why We Note Relatively Prime Expressions

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Artusartos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrix
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This discussion centers around the concept of relatively prime expressions in the context of matrix inverses, specifically examining the expressions \(\lambda^3 - 8\lambda\) and \(\lambda^2 + 1\). Participants explore the implications of these expressions being relatively prime, particularly in relation to the Euclidean algorithm and the existence of certain polynomial equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of noting that \(\lambda^3 - 8\lambda\) and \(\lambda^2 + 1\) are relatively prime.
  • Another participant explains that the Euclidean algorithm requires relatively prime elements to assert the existence of polynomials \(r(\lambda)\) and \(q(\lambda)\) such that \(r(\lambda)(\lambda^3-8\lambda)+q(\lambda)(\lambda^2+1)=1\).
  • A participant raises the point that every two elements have a gcd and asks if they can use that gcd in the equation instead.
  • It is noted that two elements are relatively prime if their gcd is 1, and that simplifying the equation by dividing through by the gcd can lead to coefficients that are relatively prime.
  • Another participant provides reasoning that \(\lambda^3 - 8\lambda\) can be factored and shows that it has no common factors with \(\lambda^2 + 1\), thus confirming they are relatively prime.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions and implications of relatively prime elements, but there is some debate regarding the necessity of noting their relative primality in the context of the Euclidean algorithm and the gcd.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the gcd and its role in determining relative primality, but the discussion does not resolve the necessity of using relatively prime expressions in the context presented.

Artusartos
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
In this video:



At the time 2:10, I don't understand why we have to note that [tex]\lambda^3 - 8\lambda[/tex] and [tex]\lambda^2 + 1[/tex] are relatively prime.

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The Euclidean algorithm only works for relatively prime elements, so when he says that [itex]r(\lambda), q(\lambda)[/itex] exists such that
[tex]r(\lambda)(\lambda^3-8\lambda)+q(\lambda)(\lambda^2+1)=1[/tex]
he uses that they are relatively prime.
 
rasmhop said:
The Euclidean algorithm only works for relatively prime elements, so when he says that [itex]r(\lambda), q(\lambda)[/itex] exists such that
[tex]r(\lambda)(\lambda^3-8\lambda)+q(\lambda)(\lambda^2+1)=1[/tex]
he uses that they are relatively prime.

Thanks a lot, but...

1) We know that any two elements have a gcd, right? Can't we just use that formula with that gcd?


2) Also, how do we know if they are relatively prime?
 
Yes, every two elements of an integral domain have a "gcd". They are "relatively prime", by definition, if and only if that gcd is 1. In particular, the "diophantine" equation ax+ by= c has a solution for x and y if and only if any divisor of a and b is also a divisor of c (if n is a divisor of both a and b, a= np, b= nq, then, for any x, y, ax+ by= n(px+ qy) so n divides ax+ by and so must also divide c). In particular, if a and b have a common divisor, so they have a gcd, that also divides c, we can divide the entire equation by it to get a simpler equation in which the coefficients are relatively prime.

To answer your questions:
1) We know that any two elements have a gcd, right? Can't we just use that formula with that gcd?
We could but, if that gcd is not 1, it is always easier to divide through by gcd to get a simpler equation in which the gcd of the two coefficients is 1- i.e. in which they are relatively prime.

2) Also, how do we know if they are relatively prime?
By finding the gcd! Two elements are relatively prime if and only if their gcd is 1.

In your original post one of the elements was [itex]\lambda^3- 8\lambda= \lambda(\lambda^2- 8)[/itex] and it is easy to see that [itex]\lambda^2- 8= 0[/itex] has no integer (or rational) roots so that cannot be factored further. Similarly [itex]\lambda^2+ 1[/itex] cannot be factored with integer (or even real) coefficients. Since they have no factors in common, they are relatively prime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, every two elements of an integral domain have a "gcd". They are "relatively prime", by definition, if and only if that gcd is 1. In particular, the "diophantine" equation ax+ by= c has a solution for x and y if and only if any divisor of a and b is also a divisor of c (if n is a divisor of both a and b, a= np, b= nq, then, for any x, y, ax+ by= n(px+ qy) so n divides ax+ by and so must also divide c). In particular, if a and b have a common divisor, so they have a gcd, that also divides c, we can divide the entire equation by it to get a simpler equation in which the coefficients are relatively prime.

To answer your questions:

We could but, if that gcd is not 1, it is always easier to divide through by it to get a simpler equation.


By finding the gcd! Two elements are relatively prime if and only if their gcd is 1.

Thanks a lot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K