Raising Matrices to power of n. (complex)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical concept of raising singular matrices to fractional and complex powers. Participants explore the implications of such operations, particularly focusing on the matrix X = [1 1; 1 1], which has a determinant of zero. The conversation includes considerations of various values for n, including fractions, irrational numbers, and imaginary numbers, as well as the challenges in defining these operations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the formula X^n = 2^(n-1)[1 1; 1 1] holds for n = 1/2 and for any positive rational number a/b.
  • Others argue that the definition of raising a matrix to an irrational or imaginary power requires clarification, as the logarithm of a singular matrix is not defined.
  • A participant mentions that MATLAB provides values for fractional powers of the matrix, leading to confusion about the algebraic proof for why fractions work.
  • One participant explains that the matrix can be diagonalized, allowing for the computation of powers using eigenvalues, which may help in understanding fractional powers.
  • Another participant questions whether Taylor series or pi expansions could be used to explain the validity of irrational powers.
  • Concerns are raised about the applicability of the natural logarithm to singular matrices, with a distinction made between general logarithmic properties and the specific case of matrices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the validity of raising singular matrices to fractional and complex powers, with no consensus reached on the best approach or definition for these operations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of using logarithms and the nature of eigenvalues in this context.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the undefined nature of the logarithm for singular matrices, the need for further exploration of eigenvalues and eigenvectors, and the lack of a clear proof for the behavior of fractional powers.

Epsillon
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
So let's say you have a matrice that has a det of 0

So X= [1 1; 1 1]

So using some verification and algebra u arive at

X^n= 2^(n-1)[1 1; 1 1]


So I am trying to define what n can be.

I already established n cannot be a - since one would get infinity for an answer since it is a singular matrix.

Another limiation is 0. Since that just gives you an identity which the formula cannot express.

But I am confused with fractions.

Technically they should work but I do not know how to explain it.
Same with irrational numbers.

so can n=1/2?




and if that is not hard enough what about imaginary numbers?


For some reason I know they work with non singular matrices .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
anyone?
 
Your formula does work for n=1/2. (If you square 2^(1/2-1) [1,1;1,1] you get back your original matrix.) In fact, the formula works for n=1/b for any positive integer b. Since you know it works for positive integers it also works for n=a/b for positive integers a/b. So it works for positive rational numbers.

For irrational and imaginary n you have to decide what it means to raise a matrix to this type of power. Hopefully someone here will have an idea.

Mathematica actually let's you raise your matrix to a positive irrational power and it gives back your formula. (It gave an error message when I tried to do imaginary powers). I don't know how to interpret this result, though.
 
For imaginary (or in general, complex) powers, the definition for ordinary numbers (not matrices) is

[tex]\alpha^{\beta} = e^{\beta \ln \alpha}[/tex]

For a matrix A, this is only defined if ln(A) exists. This is not always the case (in fact, I think det(A)=0 is precisely one case for which ln(A) is not defined...the determinant is something like the "magnitude" of a matrix).

Note: One can take arbitrary functions of matrices f(A), so long as f(A) can be defined as a convergent Taylor series. The matrix logarithm can be given by

[tex]\ln (1+A) = A - \frac12 A^2 + \frac13 A^3 - \frac14 A^4 + ...[/tex]

which does not converge for your matrix.
 
Last edited:
I used MATLAB and it gave values for fractions. So I am confused there.

Is there a proof for fractions?

I want to algebriacly proove whyy fractions work. Perhaps through induction?
 
A proof of what for fractions? You haven't stated what it is you want to prove.


The matrix
[tex]A= \left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1\end{array}\right][/tex]
has two distinct eigenvalues and so is diagonalizable. That is, there exist a matrix P such that [itex]P^{-1}AP= D[/itex] where D is a diagonal matrix having the eigenvalues 0 and 1 on the main diagonal. Then [itex]A= PDP^{-1}[/itex] and
[tex]A^n= (PDP^{-1})(PDP^{-1})(PDP^{-1})\cdot\cdot\cdot(PDP^{-1})= PD^nP^{-1}[/tex]
where Dn is easy- it is the diagonal matrix with 0 and 2n on the main diagonal.

Specifically, an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue 0 is <1, -1> and an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue 1 is <1, 1> so we can take
[tex]P= \left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & 1 \\ -1 & 1\end{array}\right][/tex]
and then
[tex]P^{-1}= \left[\begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \\ \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right][/tex]

That is
[tex]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1\end{array}\right]= \left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & 1 \\ -1 & 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}0 & 0 \\ 0 & 2\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \\ \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right][/tex]

and so
[tex]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1\end{array}\right]^n= \left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & 1 \\ -1 & 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}0 & 0 \\ 0 & 2^n\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \\ \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right][/tex]


You can show that the formula works for 1/n as well by reversing it:
[tex]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1\end{array}\right]= \left[\begin{array}{cc}1 & 1 \\ -1 & 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}0 & 0 \\ 0 & 2^{1/n}\end{array}\right]^n\left[\begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \\ \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right][/tex]
 
). I basically want to prove that when you have a singular matrix X. And you raise it to the power of 0<n<1 one can yield results.

Thanks for the exmplanation I get how to do it now. But I need to research more on eigenvalues and eigenvectors since in the course I am in currently we do not learn about those key properties.

Couple more things:
Without using eigen values can you simply prove that by saying
X[tex]^{1/n}[/tex]=M[tex]^{n}[/tex]
Where M is the result?

and I gota questions can you also use taylor series to explain why irrational numbers work?

Or perhaps like a pi expansion where you put fractions for n for your required precesion?


An why exactly doesn't ln of X work when logs work.
 
Last edited:
If X1/n= M then Mn= X, not "X1/n= Mn".

I don't know what you mean by "why exactly doesn't ln of X work when logs work. "

ln (the natural logarithm) works whenever any log "works". loga(X)= ln(X)/ln(a).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K