I Third Invariant expressed with Cayley-Hamilton Theorem

FluidStu
Messages
25
Reaction score
3
The Cayley-Hamilton Theorem can be used to express the third invariant of the characteristic polynomial obtained from the non-trivial solution of the Eigenvector/Eigenvalue problem. I follow the proof (in Chaves – Notes on Continuum Mechanics) down to the following equation, then get stuck at "Replacing the values of IT and IIT with those in 1.269. Could someone please explain? Thanks

upload_2016-4-11_9-14-6.png
upload_2016-4-11_9-17-24.png
upload_2016-4-11_9-17-35.png

with 1.269 being:
upload_2016-4-11_9-14-51.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We need to show that the RHS of the equations in the first two boxes are equal. To minimise the latex coding I'll write ##A## for ##Tr(T)## and ##B## for ##Tr(T^2)##. Then subtract the RHS of the second from the RHS of the first and multiply the result by 2 to get:
$$2II_TA-2I_TB-A^3+3AB=2II_TA-2AB-A^3+3AB=A\left(2II_T-2B-A^2+3B\right)=A\left(2II_T+B-A^2\right)=2A\left(II_T-0.5(A^2-B)\right)
=2A\left(II_T-II_T\right)=0$$
So twice the difference is zero.
So the two RHSs are equal.
 
  • Like
Likes FluidStu
Great! Thanks Andrew.
 
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...
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Back
Top