Proving Inverse Matrices: Simplifying the Last Step

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

This discussion focuses on proving that a given matrix is the inverse of another by demonstrating that their product yields the identity matrix. The key technique involves using the formula for the sum of a geometric series, specifically \sum_{m=0}^{M-1} z^m = \frac{1 - z^{M}}{1 - z}, applicable for complex numbers where z ≠ 1. Additionally, the geometric interpretation of averaging M complex numbers around the unit circle is highlighted, leading to a conclusion that their average is zero when \lambda - \kappa is a nonzero integer.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of matrix multiplication and the identity matrix
  • Familiarity with complex numbers and their properties
  • Knowledge of geometric series and their summation
  • Basic concepts of Fourier analysis and sampling
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of matrix inverses and their proofs
  • Learn about geometric series and their applications in complex analysis
  • Explore the geometric interpretation of complex numbers on the unit circle
  • Investigate Fourier series and their relationship to complex exponentials
USEFUL FOR

Students in linear algebra, mathematicians interested in matrix theory, and anyone studying complex analysis or Fourier transforms will benefit from this discussion.

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: 466
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