This set is due the last day of lecture, Friday May 6.

Let be an entire function,

,

where the series converges for all complex numbers .

Basic results about power series give us that the series converges absolutely, i.e.,

for all , and that for any , if is a series such that , then converges as well.

Given a finite dimensional inner product space , and a , we want to define , in a way that it is again a linear operator on . The most common example is when . This “exponential matrix” has applications in differential equations and elsewhere.

To make sense of , we define making use of the power series of :

Of course, the problem is to make sure that this expression makes sense. (Use the results of Homework 4 to) show that this series converges, and moreover

Fixing a basis for , suppose that is diagonal. Compute in that case. In particular, in , find where

Show that, in general, the computation of reduces to the computation of for a matrix in Jordan canonical form.

For

a Jordan block, show that in order to actually find reduces to finding formulas for for Find this formula, and use it to find a formula for . It may be useful to review the basics of Taylor series for this.

As an application, find for and .

Finally, given , show that is invertible and find .

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Friday, April 22nd, 2011 at 2:43 pm and is filed under 403/503: Linear Algebra II. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

When we’re supposing that T is diagonal, do you mean the matrix associated to T is diagonal? Are we still computing f(T) or then f(M(T))? I think I’m a little confused as to when we’re using the matrices or the linear operators in the function f.

I thought about this question a while ago, while teaching a topics course. Since one can easily check that $${}|{\mathbb R}|=|{\mathcal P}({\mathbb N})|$$ by a direct construction that does not involve diagonalization, the question can be restated as: Is there a proof of Cantor's theorem that ${}|X|

First of all, note (as Monroe does in his question) that if $\mathbb P,\mathbb Q$ are ccc, then $\mathbb P\times\mathbb Q$ is $\mathfrak c^+$-cc, as an immediate consequence of the Erdős-Rado theorem $(2^{\aleph_0})^+\to(\aleph_1)^2_2$. (This is to say, if $\mathbb P$ and $\mathbb Q$ do not admit uncountable antichains, then any antichain in their product ha […]

The technique of almost disjoint forcing was introduced in MR0289291 (44 #6482). Jensen, R. B.; Solovay, R. M. Some applications of almost disjoint sets. In Mathematical Logic and Foundations of Set Theory (Proc. Internat. Colloq., Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 84–104, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970. Fix an almost disjoint family $X=(x_\alpha:\alpha

At the moment most of those decisions come from me, at least for computer science papers (those with a 68 class as primary). The practice of having proceedings and final versions of papers is not exclusive to computer science, but this is where it is most common. I've found more often than not that the journal version is significantly different from the […]

The answer is no in general. For instance, by what is essentially an argument of Sierpiński, if $(X,\Sigma,\nu)$ is a $\sigma$-finite continuous measure space, then no non-null subset of $X$ admits a $\nu\times\nu$-measurable well-ordering. The proof is almost verbatim the one here. It is consistent (assuming large cardinals) that there is an extension of Le […]

R. Solovay proved that the provably $\mathbf\Delta^1_2$ sets are Lebesgue measurable (and have the property of Baire). A set $A$ is provably $\mathbf\Delta^1_2$ iff there is a real $a$, a $\Sigma^1_2$ formula $\phi(x,y)$ and a $\Pi^1_2$ formula $\psi(x,y)$ such that $$A=\{t\mid \phi(t,a)\}=\{t\mid\psi(t,a)\},$$ and $\mathsf{ZFC}$ proves that $\phi$ and $\psi […]

A notion now considered standard of primitive recursive set function is introduced in MR0281602 (43 #7317). Jensen, Ronald B.; Karp, Carol. Primitive recursive set functions. In 1971 Axiomatic Set Thoory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1967) pp. 143–176 Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I. The concept is use […]

The power of a set is its cardinality. (As opposed to its power set, which is something else.) As you noticed in the comments, Kurepa trees are supposed to have countable levels, although just saying that a tree has size and height $\omega_1$ is not enough to conclude this, so the definition you quoted is incomplete as stated. Usually the convention is that […]

The key problem in the absence of the axiom of replacement is that there may be well-ordered sets $S$ that are too large in the sense that they are longer than any ordinal. In that case, the collection of ordinals isomorphic to an initial segment of $S$ would be the class of all ordinals, which is not a set. For example, with $\omega$ denoting as usual the f […]

I changed the last matrix to have a non-diagonalizable example.

Hello Dr. Caicedo,

When we’re supposing that T is diagonal, do you mean the matrix associated to T is diagonal? Are we still computing f(T) or then f(M(T))? I think I’m a little confused as to when we’re using the matrices or the linear operators in the function f.

thanks,

Hi Rachel: Yes; once we fix a basis , we can identified with the matrix , and by saying that is diagonal I meant that is.