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.

Craig: For a while, there was some research on improving bounds on the number of variables or degree of unsolvable Diophantine equations. Unfortunately, I never got around to cataloging the known results in any systematic way, so all I can offer is some pointers to relevant references, but I am not sure of what the current records are. Perhaps the first pape […]

Yes. Consider, for instance, Conway's base 13 function $c$, or any function that is everywhere discontinuous and has range $\mathbb R$ in every interval. Pick continuous bijections $f_n:\mathbb R\to(-1/n,1/n)$ for $n\in\mathbb N^+$. Pick a strictly decreasing sequence $(x_n)_{n\ge1}$ converging to $0$. Define $f$ by setting $f(x)=0$ if $x=0$ or $\pm x_n […]

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

The description below comes from József Beck. Combinatorial games. Tic-tac-toe theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 114. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, MR2402857 (2009g:91038). Given a finite set $S$ of points in the plane $\mathbb R^2$, consider the following game between two players Maker and Breaker. The players alternat […]

Yes. This is a consequence of the Davis-Matiyasevich-Putnam-Robinson work on Hilbert's 10th problem, and some standard number theory. A number of papers have details of the $\Pi^0_1$ sentence. To begin with, take a look at the relevant paper in Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert's problems (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Northern Illinois Un […]

It is easy to see without choice that if there is a surjection from $A$ onto $B$, then there is an injection from ${\mathcal P}(B)$ into ${\mathcal P}(A)$, and the result follows from Cantor's theorem that $B

Only noticed this question today. Although the selected answer is quite nice and arguably simpler than the argument below, none of the posted answers address what appeared to be the original intent of establishing the inequality using the Arithmetic Mean-Geometric Mean Inequality. For this, simply notice that $$ 1+3+\ldots+(2n-1)=n^2, $$ which can be easily […]

First of all, $f(z)+e^z\ne 0$ by the first inequality. It follows that $e^z/(f(z)+e^z)$ is entire, and bounded above. You should be able to conclude from that.

Yes. The standard way of defining these sequences goes by assigning in an explicit fashion to each limit ordinal $\alpha$, for as long as possible, an increasing sequence $\alpha_n$ that converges to $\alpha$. Once this is done, we can define $f_\alpha$ by diagonalizing, so $f_\alpha(n)=f_{\alpha_n}(n)$ for all $n$. Of course there are many possible choices […]

I disagree with the advice of sending a paper to a journal before searching the relevant literature. It is almost guaranteed that a paper on the fundamental theorem of algebra (a very classical and well-studied topic) will be rejected if you do not include mention on previous proofs, and comparisons, explaining how your proof differs from them, etc. It is no […]

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.