Using linear algebra to tell when your derivation is impossible?

phasor
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I think linear algebra is the best place to ask my question. Feel free to move this thread elsewhere if I am wrong.

I would like to know how I can use linear algebra to help me figure out when I am deriving an equation if the derivation I would like to have is possible. So, if I have a relation with variables x and y, is it possible to express y in terms of only x? The other way around?

Keplers Equation makes a good example: M = E - e*Sin(E). (e is eccentricity). M can be expressed in terms of E, but because this equation is transcendental E cannot be expressed in terms of M. That's easy enough to see here, but what if I have complicated expressions for M and E, and I am trying to derive Kepler's equation? Is there a theorem I can apply to figure out, before doing lots of algebra, that E cannot be expressed in terms of only M?

Thanks for the help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If your equation has lots of transcendental functions in it, that's a good indicator that no closed form solution is possible.

To answer your basic question, no, linear algebra cannot be used to determine if a closed-form derivation can be developed for a particular variable.
 
Maybe Kepler's Equation was a bad choice for an example. But there are plenty of equations loaded with transcendental functions that have closed form solutions. There's no method of discovering if a problem has a closed form solution other than algebra + inspection?
 
##\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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
441
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top