What is the inverse of the 3x3 matrix mod 26

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The inverse of the 3x3 matrix K mod 26 was calculated using the cofactor method and the Euclidean algorithm. The matrix K is defined as K = [[17, 17, 5], [21, 18, 21], [2, 2, 19]]. The determinant was found to be -939, which is equivalent to 23 mod 26. The correct inverse, after applying the modular arithmetic, is [[4, 9, 15], [15, 17, 6], [24, 0, 17]], confirming the solution provided in the reference book.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of matrix operations, specifically cofactor expansion and transposition.
  • Familiarity with modular arithmetic, particularly mod 26 calculations.
  • Knowledge of the Euclidean algorithm for finding modular inverses.
  • Ability to perform matrix multiplication and simplification of fractions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Learn about the properties of modular inverses in linear algebra.
  • Study the application of the Euclidean algorithm in cryptography.
  • Explore matrix operations in programming languages, such as Python's NumPy library.
  • Investigate advanced topics in modular arithmetic, including applications in coding theory.
USEFUL FOR

Students studying linear algebra, mathematicians interested in modular arithmetic, and anyone working with cryptographic algorithms that utilize matrix operations.

DODGEVIPER13
Messages
668
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


What is the inverse of the 3x3 matrix mod 26?
K = <br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 17 &amp; 17 &amp; 5\\<br /> 21 &amp; 18 &amp; 21\\<br /> 2 &amp; 2 &amp; 19 <br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />




Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


So I found all the cofactors and then took the transpose of the matrix. I then divided new matrix, by the determinate -939. After which I would multiply this by 17 because 23-1 mod 26 = 17 to get the inverse. I found 17 by using the euclidean algorithm. This was all UPLOADED. However I am confused because even if I do this I do not get the answer in the book. They get:

<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 4 &amp; 9 &amp; 15\\<br /> 15 &amp; 17 &amp; 6\\<br /> 24 &amp; 0 &amp; 17 <br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />

I have so far without multiplying it by 17:

<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 300/-939 &amp; -313/-939 &amp; 267/-939\\<br /> -357/-939 &amp; 313/-939 &amp; -252/-939\\<br /> 6/-939 &amp; 0 &amp; -51/-939<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />

I realize that even if I go ahead I will not reach what the book has, what have I done wrong? All of my work has been UPLOADED.
 

Attachments

  • EPSON004.jpg
    EPSON004.jpg
    25.8 KB · Views: 2,446
Physics news on Phys.org
I'll do the center column - because it's easy:
<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> k_{11} &amp; k_{12} &amp; k_{13}\\<br /> k_{21} &amp; k_{22} &amp; k_{23}\\<br /> k_{31} &amp; k_{32} &amp; k_{33}<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 17 &amp; 17 &amp; 5\\<br /> 21 &amp; 18 &amp; 21\\<br /> 2 &amp; 2 &amp; 19 <br /> \end{pmatrix} = <br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 1 &amp; 0 &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; 1 &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1 <br /> \end{pmatrix}<br /> \ \\<br /> \ \\<br /> \ \\<br /> A)\ 17K_{11} + 21K_{12} + 2K_{13} = 1 \\<br /> B)\ 17K_{11} + 18K_{12} + 2K_{13} = 0 \\<br /> C)\ 5K_{11} + 21K_{12} + 19K_{13} = 0 \\<br /> D)\ 17K_{21} + 21K_{22} + 2K_{23} = 0 \\<br /> E)\ 17K_{21} + 18K_{22} + 2K_{23} = 1 \\<br /> F)\ 5K_{21} + 21K_{22} + 19K_{23} = 0 \\<br /> G)\ 17K_{31} + 21K_{32} + 2K_{33} = 0 \\<br /> H)\ 17K_{31} + 18K_{32} + 2K_{33} = 0 \\<br /> I)\ 5K_{31} + 21K_{32} + 19K_{33} = 1 \\<br /> \ \\<br /> \ \\<br /> Modulo 26\ table\ for\ Y=3X: 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, ...\\<br /> A-B)\ \ \ 3K_{12} = 1 \\<br /> A-B/3)\ K_{12} = 9 \\<br /> D-E)\ \ \ 3K_{22} = 25 \\<br /> D-E/3)\ K_{22} = 17 \\<br /> G-H)\ \ \ 3K_{32} = 0 \\<br /> G-H/3)\ 3K_{32} = 0 \\<br /> \ \\<br /> \ \\<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> k_{11} &amp; 9 &amp; k_{13}\\<br /> k_{21} &amp; 17 &amp; k_{23}\\<br /> k_{31} &amp; 0 &amp; k_{33}<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br /> \ \\<br />
That book answer is looking good to me.
 
DODGEVIPER13 said:

The Attempt at a Solution


So I found all the cofactors and then took the transpose of the matrix. I then divided new matrix, by the determinate -939. After which I would multiply this by 17 because 23-1 mod 26 = 17 to get the inverse. I found 17 by using the euclidean algorithm. This was all UPLOADED. However I am confused because even if I do this I do not get the answer in the book. They get:

<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 4 &amp; 9 &amp; 15\\<br /> 15 &amp; 17 &amp; 6\\<br /> 24 &amp; 0 &amp; 17 <br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />

I have so far without multiplying it by 17:

<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 300/-939 &amp; -313/-939 &amp; 267/-939\\<br /> -357/-939 &amp; 313/-939 &amp; -252/-939\\<br /> 6/-939 &amp; 0 &amp; -51/-939<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />

I realize that even if I go ahead I will not reach what the book has, what have I done wrong? All of my work has been UPLOADED.

Mod 26 (-939) is 23.
Mod 26 (1/23) is 17.
So 17 is the right number to use.

<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 17*300 &amp; 17*-313 &amp; 17*267\\<br /> 17*-357 &amp; 17*313 &amp; 17*-252\\<br /> 17*6 &amp; 0 &amp; 17*-51<br /> \end{pmatrix} =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 17*14 &amp; 17*25 &amp; 17*7\\<br /> 17*7 &amp; 17*1 &amp; 17*8\\<br /> 17*6 &amp; 0 &amp; 17*1<br /> \end{pmatrix} =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 4 &amp; 9 &amp; 15\\<br /> 15 &amp; 17 &amp; 6\\<br /> 24 &amp; 0 &amp; 17<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />
So you already had the solution.
If you're using a recent Windows operating system, you have a calculator with the Mod function.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Ok cool so I did get the answer.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
16K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K