We have a linear transformation from a matrix space, to a real space defined as a product of all elements in the matrix.
How can we define a matrix representing such transformation with respect to the standard basis?
The 'standard basis' here is a set of matrices:
So I can write something like that:
Here is what I understand:
Since the matrix representing T is in "the most appropriate" basis and it is diagonal, it have to be
So how do I find b2 an b3?
Homomorphism? I guess not. At least what I read in my lecture notes does not give me any clues on how to solve the problem.
Ok. Taking a step back. According to my notes:
- Let T:V->W be a linear transformation.
- If T is invertible, we call it an isomorphism.
So to prove thatis isomorphic, I need to show that it is invertible. Yes?
Well, maybe the trick is in the properties of invertible matrices?
How to start the proof?
I am thinking about something like this: Let, then by definition of matrix invertibility . So .
But there is an issue of order, it does matter in the matrix product and I do violate it in this proof. So it must be wrong. But I do not see how to fix it.
We have two spheres with centers (x_1, y_1, z_1) and (x_2, y_2, z_2). And radii r_1 and r_2.
What is the volume of solid intersection of these two spheres?
I am not sure how to approach this question.
I know that a point will belong to the solid iff:
It should be something like a sum of all points which satisfy the inequality:
After a second look at all these... I have a feeling that on average, we would have exactly half of the bits inverted. So we can say that if we increase number of bits, on average, the randomized inversion will require half the power than full inversion.
Is this correct or am I oversimplifying it?
We have two three digit binary numbers. In one number all digits do invert every single step (does not matter what the initial value was, lets say we have a 000-111).
In another number, each digit inverts on random.
Each inversion requires some work to be done. So for the first number, in 10 steps we require 3*10=30 energy.
If none of the digits in the second number was inverted (this can happen), then in the same 10 steps we require 0*10=0 energy. If all of the digits in the second number was inverted (this also can happen), then we will require 3*10=30 energy.
But since the second number is under randomizer we will usually have less energy spent on it in comparison with the first number.
The question is: what is the average reduction of energy which would be required by the second number in comparison with the first one?
My current train of thought is:
There are four possible cases:
0 inverted - 2^3 combinations
1 inverted - (2^3)^3 combinations
2 inverted - (2^3)^3 combinations
3 inverted - 2^3 combinations
At each step one of those four cases can happen.
So the probability to spend get any single from combination A to combination B is
So on average we supposed to get
Is this correct?
How to find n in the equation:
By trial and error I found that n=164. But is it possible to express n for a direct calculation? How did people solve such problems before the age of computers?
The problem is:
For which positive integers k is the following series convergent?
For series to be convergent the next inequality should be true (by the Ratio Test):
And now I simplify:
But since k is a constant this limit will never be less than 1. Therefore the series divergent for all possible k.
Did I make a mistake somewhere? Textbook is looking for a convergent series...
The problem: Calculate a partial sum for the first ten terms, estimate the error. Round answers to five decimal places.
Well, the partial sum is not a problem - a few minutes with a calculator and the answer is 1.04931. But the error estimation part gives me the trouble.
As far as I understand, I am supposed to solve:
I see that the series is convegent.
And I also see that it converges to some value which is bigger than 1/c, but less than 2/c.
But what exactly is the value? How to reach it?
Ok, I tried it both ways and got:
if h(x)=1.5-x, then
Maybe I do not understand it at all, but: If pdf is defined for the [1,2] range, does that mean that we expect "the demand" to be at least 1, but no more than 2? but from this point of view the 1.5 at the beginning of the week will satisfy part of the demand and at the end of the week we would have a shortage. So negative amount should be the correct answer?
The problem states:
The weekly demand for propane gas (in 1000s of gallons) from a particular facility is an rv X with pdf
As far as I understand, to solve the problem I need to calculate:
Starting from here:
We have a formula #24 in the table of integrals in the textbook: