Rank 3x4 Complex Matrix Constraints

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter swraman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complex Matrix rank
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the constraints applicable to a 3x4 complex matrix M that relates a vector d to another vector c. Participants explore the implications of introducing specific constraints on the elements of the matrix, particularly in relation to the real and imaginary parts of the vectors involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires whether it is possible to apply a constraint such that d(1) = d(2) affects only the real or imaginary parts of the complex matrix M.
  • The same participant expresses a desire to set the amplitudes of d(1) and d(2) to a specific ratio while allowing their phases to vary independently.
  • Another participant suggests rewriting the system over the reals to gain better control over individual amplitudes and phases, although this approach would double the dimensions of the problem.
  • A later reply acknowledges the proposed approach but raises concerns about the time constraints due to its application in a control loop.
  • Further, a participant mentions the possibility of returning to the modified complex version after applying the additional constraints and warns about the implications of certain terms in the equations.
  • There is a suggestion that specific algorithms could facilitate fast numerical solutions, including the use of Taylor series and optimized matrix multiplication techniques.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and implications of applying constraints to the matrix, with no consensus reached on the best approach or the practicality of the proposed methods.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations related to the complexity of the matrix operations and the need for efficient algorithms, as well as the implications of dimensionality when rewriting the system over the reals.

swraman
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
I am dealing with a 3x4 complex matrix M that relates a vector d to another vetor c. That is:

c = [M]*d

d
is 4x1 and c is 3x1. I want to introduce a new line (constraint) into M, say d(1) = d(2). However, I would like to only apply the constraint to the real or only the imaginary parts. Is this possible?

Let me rephrase to give some perspective. M is a complex matrix that represents the frequency response of a system at a given frequency, thus M is complex as each element has magnitude and phase. Since my system has 3 outputs and 4 inputs, I want to introduce a constraint to make my matrix square (and ensure there is only one solution). I know I can set d(1) = d(2) or any relationship like that, but that locks both amplitude and phase of d(1) and d(2) together. Is there any way to set only the amplitudes together, or only the phases together?

Ideally, I'd like to set their amplitudes to a ratio of 1/10 and don't care what their phases to do whatever. This is where I get a bit murky...Is this possible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You could write the entire system over the reals. This doubles your dimensions but you get a better control of individual amplitudes and phases separately. At the end you then recombine the solutions to complex numbers again.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: swraman
Ah...Thats what I am looking for. Thanks. Only problem is this is to be used in a control loop, so time is of a concern.
 
Once you know how things could be simplified by your additional constraints (and watch out the ##i^2## terms!), you could go back to the then modified complex version and pretend it always has been.

Edit: For fast numerical solutions there are certainly specific algorithms which I don't know. Perhaps via writing the complex numbers as ##re^{i \varphi}## and using Taylor series for approximations. Even matrix multiplication as ##(2 \times 2) \cdot (2 \times 2)## could be reduced from ##8## to ##7## basic multiplications at the cost of additional additions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K