Square matrix to the power of a imaginary unit

sunny110
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hi;

How to raising a square matrix to the power of a complex number?

for example:
[1 2;3 4]^(1+i)

or mathematics software such as Scilab how solve such problems?
-->[1 2;3 4]^(1+%i)
ans =

- 0.1482039 - 0.2030943
- 0.3046414 - 0.4528453


Thanks in advance.

-----
Additational remark:
for element by element power operation (.^) , the output value is equal to the principle value computed as:
z1.^z2 = exp( z2* ( log(abs(z1)) + %i*atan(imag(z1)/real(z1)) ) )


-->[1 2;3 4].^(1+%i)
ans =

1. 1.5384778 + 1.2779226i
1.3644973 + 2.6717311i 0.7338279 + 3.932111i
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Depending on the matrix, there might not be any sensible way to do this. If the matrix is diagonalizable, then you can apply the exponent to the eigenvalues. In general, you can attempt to define the power using the logarithm of the matrix, ## A^p = \exp ( p \ln A)##. The logarithm can be defined as the matrix ##B## such that ##A = e^B##, or via a power series. In general, the logarithm only exists if ##A## is invertible, and when dealing with complex elements is not necessarily unique.
 
Thanks for reply.
fzero said:
In general, you can attempt to define the power using the logarithm of the matrix, ## A^p = \exp ( p \ln A)##. .

yes, for element-wise power operation, in fact the software compute the above expression.
a .^(%i+1) == exp((%i+1)*log(a))

fzero said:
If the matrix is diagonalizable, then you can apply the exponent to the eigenvalues.

Let us return to the main problem i.e: a=[1 2;3 4]; a^(1+i)
eigenvalues and eigenvectors may be get as:
-->[v,d]=spec(a)
d =

- 0.3722813 0
0 5.3722813
v =

- 0.8245648 - 0.4159736
0.5657675 - 0.9093767

This matrix is diagonalizable: inv(v)*a*v == d

So still I don't know what algorithm the software use?


And another question, if one wants to solve this problem by hand, which method should be used?
 
sunny110 said:
Let us return to the main problem i.e: a=[1 2;3 4]; a^(1+i)
eigenvalues and eigenvectors may be get as:
-->[v,d]=spec(a)
d =

- 0.3722813 0
0 5.3722813
v =

- 0.8245648 - 0.4159736
0.5657675 - 0.9093767

This matrix is diagonalizable: inv(v)*a*v == d

So still I don't know what algorithm the software use?

I'm not familiar with the software, so I don't know. In terms of computational complexity, multiplication of large matrices takes a similar number of operations as computing the inverse of a matrix. I would guess that using the power series definition of the log (when it converges) is slightly faster than diagonalizing the matrix and then inverting the matrix of eigenvectors. Also, there are invertible matrices that are not diagonalizable, so the software would have to be able to use more than one algorithm anyway.

And another question, if one wants to solve this problem by hand, which method should be used?

For a small matrix I would probably want to diagonalize first whenever possible. For a simple enough matrix, this could lead to an exact result. If only a numerical result is required, then the power series method might be faster, depending on the convergence properties.
 
##\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...
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...
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...
Back
Top