Understand Summation Notation & Clear Confusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lucid Dreamer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation Summation
Lucid Dreamer
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
I am trying to understand summation notation and there are a few inconsistencies in my head that I would like to clear up.

Suppose C is an m*n matrix and \vec{x} is a 1*m row vector. Then,

\vec{x}C = \sum_{i} x_{i}C_{ij} = \sum_{i} C_{ij}x_{i} = \sum_{i} {C_{ji}}^Tx_{i} = C^T \vec{x}

This is clearly wrong but I'm not sure which operation is wrong. In terms of dimensions it doesn't make sense since C^T is n*m and \vec{x} is 1*m.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The discrepancy arises because this way of defining a matrix and vector does not differentiate between (e.g.) a row vector and a column vector. Have a look at this for a general introduction to Einstein's notation and this for it's implementation in your case. No issues there!
 
Specifically, it is saying that
\begin{bmatrix}x & y\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}a & c \\ b & d\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x \\ y\end{bmatrix}
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
400
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top