I have one simple question : What is the maximal possible value of $|Tr(M)|$ where $M\in SU(n)$? Here, $SU(n) = \{M\in GLn(\Bbb C)\mid MM^* = M^*M = I,\det M =1\}$.
Since $M$ is a unitary matrix anyway, there is $A\in U(n)$ such that $AMA^{-1} = D$ where $D$ is the diagonal matrix.
But the problematic spot is that $A$ does not necessarily contained in $SU(n)$.
I think whether $A\in SU(n)$ or not is not important. Since trace is invariant under similar matrices, $Tr(A)$ is anyway $Tr(D)$ so maximum value is again $n$ this time.
unit: if by that you mean that when c is given in the parallelipiped, you choose delta like that (except: b_i - c_i, not c_i - b_i), then whenever x satisfies |x - c| < delta then x will also be in that parallelipiped, then yes. you are blending superscripts and subscripts a bit but the idea is OK
Given a dedekind cut $x$, If $x \gt 0$, I want to define the inverse of a cut $x^{-1}= \{ r \in \Bbb Q^{+}\mid \exists p \in \mathbb{Q}-X \ ( pr\lt1)\}$, it’s easy to check that it’s a cut, but how to prove that $xx^{-1}=1^{\ast}$ where $1^{\ast}$ is the usual dedekind cut cut for $1$, it’s easy to see that $xx^{-1}\subseteq 1^{\ast}$ but how to show the other direction?
I suppose it can be shown that there exists $a_{n}$ in $x$ such that $1/(a_{n}+1/n)$ is in $x^{-1}$ and then using the fact that $a_{n}/(a_{n}+1/n)$ eventually approaches $1$, but is there an easier proof especially one that avoided the Archimedean property and does my proof hold water?
@robjohn Does it work?
I think it does because the $a_{n}$ are bounded away from $0$, so Leslie Townes criticism does not hold.
that's more a question for whoever you are writing this for. personally, i would include more detail if someone were looking at it later. but if this is self study i think you are done.
Sorry if interrupting, no immediate response needed. But do you know, @robjohn, how I can change the coloring of my keyboard gravatar to shades of green?
@robjohn I figured that, and ensure "my regular" is saved on my computer. Would that editing the image through, e.g., photoshop, or paint, or something like that?
Were I a St Patrick's Day celebrating kind of person, I think that I would opt for orange, rather than green. I feel like I come down more on the side of the Protestants than those Papist blowhards.
On the other hand, Purim is next week. Maybe I should give my avatar a tiara?
Purim is a great holiday. I think that people use St Patrick's Day as an excuse for drinking, whereas you are more or less commanded to drink on Purim, until you can no longer remember Haman's name. Why tolerate public drunkenness when you can actively encourage it?!
I have a precalculus lecture to give in 10 minutes. Spring break is next week, and I finished up a chapter on Tuesday. I don't want to start a new chapter, so I have decided to riff for 70 minutes on matrices (the chapter we just finished introduces vectors; matrices were supposed to have been introduced in the prereq class)
I am hoping to show them how a matrix acts on a vector (by scaling and rotating and whatnot), I want to show them how the angle sum formulæ "just pop out" of this interpretation, and I want them to see the determinant as an area. None of this is vital to the class, and I don't plan to test them on it---I just want them to see something interesting before spring break.
Are there any other easy results which might be interesting?
Again, my plan is total improvisation today, because f*** it, spring break is next week and I don't care.
I post an agenda at the beginning of class, noting what I plan to cover. Today's agenda: "whatever pops into my head". Because holy s***, I just cannot be arsed today.
Last week, I posted a song from an all-girl Ukrainian grunge rock group, The Sixsters. Here's their latest song. They probably won't be posting more songs for a little while: their drummer's house got trashed. Fortunately, they got out in time, so nobody was hurt.
Is it permissible to talk about things other than mathematics here? Because the last messages in the room are about other things
If (a + b)^2 we know that it has a general rule for its square and if the exponent is 3 then there is a general rule, my question is what is the highest exponent with a general rule in (a+b)^n?
In elementary algebra, the binomial theorem (or binomial expansion) describes the algebraic expansion of powers of a binomial. According to the theorem, it is possible to expand the polynomial (x + y)n into a sum involving terms of the form axbyc, where the exponents b and c are nonnegative integers with b + c = n, and the coefficient a of each term is a specific positive integer depending on n and b. For example, for n = 4,
The coefficient a in the term of axbyc is known as the binomial coefficient
(...
@Vrouvrou I am dubious about your statement here. What kind of series expansion? Doesn't the fact that this function diverges at infinity cause some problems around infinity?
(or, after you make the change of variables, you have a problem at $u=0$, as $1/u$ is undefined).
@M17 I still don't understand your question. How what was done? The steps to what?
The fact that $(a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2$ follows from the distributivity of multiplication over addition, and the fact that both multiplication and addition are commutative in the reals.
@Vrouvrou Not right off the top of my head, no, but I would not try to develop series expansions of each term separately---rather, I suspect that if you do some clever algebra first, you'll get something which behaves nicely.
@Vrouvrou Because my gut tells me that if you work out a Taylor series expansion at $a$, you will see some telescoping or other cute algebraic tricks with kill off a bunch of terms. After working out the general series, I suspect that you will be able to take $a$ to $\infty$ (or, really, to take $a \to 0$ and think about the expansion around $1/a$).
But that is just a gut reaction. I genuinely have no idea off the top of my head how to tackle that problem, and don't have the energy to think about it right now.
@M17 There are many numbers with exactly three prime factors. Choose your three favorite prime numbers, say $2$, $3$, and $47$. Their product is a natural number with exactly three prime factors.
As long as general discussion is allowed here as well, Why in sports when any external event happened was always separated from that, why is sports not separated now?