Proving Inverse Matrices: Simplifying the Last Step

  • Thread starter Thread starter swuster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrices
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a specific matrix is the inverse of another by demonstrating that their product yields the identity matrix. The original poster expresses difficulty in simplifying the final step of the proof and feels they may be overlooking something important.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of a cut-off sentence in the original poster's proof attempt and question whether it provides a hint. There is also a suggestion to utilize a known mathematical formula related to sums of complex numbers, which may aid in the proof.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance that appears to assist the original poster in progressing with their proof. There is acknowledgment of the geometric interpretation of the problem, particularly regarding the averaging of complex numbers around the unit circle.

Contextual Notes

The original poster mentions a specific case involving an exponential argument and expresses uncertainty about proving that certain terms are zero. The discussion includes references to complex numbers and their properties.

swuster
Messages
40
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I'm trying to show that a given matrix is the inverse of the other, by showing that multiplying them together generates the identity matrix. I can't see a way to simplify the last step and I feel like I'm missing something..? Any input on this would be helpful. Thanks!

Homework Equations


see below
j = sqrt(-1)

The Attempt at a Solution


ece2200.jpg

How do I prove that the rest of the terms are 0?
 

Attachments

  • ece2200.jpg
    ece2200.jpg
    26.4 KB · Views: 478
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks to me like the last sentence, which you cut off at the comma, might give you a hint. What does it say?
 
It's not cut off. It's as far as I have gotten with the proof, haha. There is nothing obvious that jumps out at me when I consider the case where the exponential argument isn't 0.
 
Try using

\sum_{m=0}^{M-1} z^m = \frac{1 - z^{M}}{1 - z}

which holds for any complex number z \neq 1.
 
Thanks so much! That did the trick!

finishedproof.jpg
 
swuster said:
Thanks so much! That did the trick!

finishedproof.jpg

Looks good, nice job.

It's also insightful to consider what is going on geometrically.

This sum:

\sum_{i=0}^{M-1}\frac{1}{M}e^{j\left(\frac{2\pi(\lambda-\kappa)i}{M}\right)

is calculating the average of M complex numbers. Furthermore, since \lambda - \kappa is a nonzero integer, these complex numbers are evenly spaced samples around the unit circle, so their average is zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K