Matrix equation, solving for x(t)

  • Thread starter Thread starter exidez
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
exidez
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
this comes strait from a textbook:
http://higheredbcs.wiley.com/legacy/college/nise/0471794759/appendices/app_i.pdf
I am looking at how they obtained (I.24) from (I.25) on page 3 and 4.

Firstly we have:

e^{-\textbf{A}t}x(t)-x(0)=\int{e^{-\textbf{A}t}\textbf{Bu}(\tau)d\tau}

Then this is derived to:

x(t)=e^{-\textbf{A}t}x(0)+\int{e^{-\textbf{A}(t-\tau)}\textbf{Bu}(\tau)d\tau}

my question is why does the derived equation have e^{-\textbf{A}t}. I thought it would have been e^{\textbf{A}t} instead. Can someone explain this too me. The text didnt help me.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think there are typos in the first line of equation 25. Some of the minus signs shouldn't be there.

The statement "where \Phi(t) = e^{At} by defintion" and the equation involving \Phi are correct.

Just take equation 24 and multiply all the term by e^{At} (note, no minus sign!) to get the correct version.
 
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...
Back
Top