Positive definitive matrix in wikipedia

de_student
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi all. I have a quick question

In this wikilink en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive-definite_matrix in the first example

I don't get how they get 2x1^2 -2x1x2+2x2^2-2x2x3+2x3^2 in the third line.

Can anyone bother to explain?

Thanks a lot
 
Physics news on Phys.org
de_student said:
Hi all. I have a quick question

In this wikilink en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive-definite_matrix in the first example

I don't get how they get 2x1^2 -2x1x2+2x2^2-2x2x3+2x3^2 in the third line.

Can anyone bother to explain?

Thanks a lot

Hey de_student and welcome to the forums.

For that line they are multiplying a row vector by a column vector which translates to an inner product. So if the row vector is [a, b, c] and the column vector is [x, y, z]^T then the result will be ax + by + cz using the standard definition of matrix multiplication.
 
Hi. Thanks for prompt answer. But my question is in the example there is not always [c]-member from row vector. like there is no x3 in the member (2x1-x2). How can I deal with that?
 
de_student said:
Hi. Thanks for prompt answer. But my question is in the example there is not always [c]-member from row vector. like there is no x3 in the member (2x1-x2). How can I deal with that?

I'm not sure what you mean, but the expression has been expanded out in the right manner. The reason there is no x3 for this term is because the M matrix has a 0 element at row 3, column 1. This is why there is no x3 element for this particular case in that particular cell.
 
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