Inverting a Tensor - How to Find Out?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tulip
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tensor
tulip
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Thank you for reading.

If I have an object (is it correct to call it a tensor?) whose components are defined by:

X_{mikl}=(R^{-1})_{mi}R_{kl}-(S^{-1})_{mi}S_{kl},

where R and S are invertible matrices. I want to find the "inverse" of X, i.e. to find (X^{-1}) such that,

(X^{-1})_{qkpm}X_{mikl}=\delta_{lq}\delta_{pi}.

Is there a way to find out whether (X^{-1}) exists? A matrix doesn't have an inverse if its determinant is zero - is there a similar rule here? I've tried some trial functions for X^{-1} but nothing works, and I want to know whether there's a better way of tackling this problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
With no further constraints the tensor you have proposed is, in general, not invertible.

Consider for example the case R=S. Then X will be the null tensor. Or even the less trivial case R=S^{-1} will lead also to X=0 if R^2=1 (idempotent).

Therefore, in general, it is not invertible.
 
Last edited:
R is not equal to S, or to the inverse of S. It is clearly true that for special cases where X=0 there is no inverse, but I don't see how this tells us that X is generally non-invertible. Can you explain?
 
If for the problem stated there are cases where X is not invertible (even if there is just one of such cases) then it can not exist a theorem, a result, or an algorithm which allows us to invert the given expression with generelity, i.e. regardless of the values of R and S, (i.e., operating with "letters" in full generality insted of with "numbers"). Hence, the invertibility or not of X will depend on the particular values of R and S, and so we say that "in general" X is not invertible.

So, the meaning of "in general X is not invertible" is not "X is non-invertible more often than not"; the meaning is actually "the invertibility of X has to be determined on a particular case basis, it can not be determined generally (no matter the values of R and S)"
 
Last edited:
##\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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top