| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 7 months |
| seen | Mar 29 at 7:57 | |
| stats | profile views | 12 |
Twitter: @lucaskointw
|
Jan 31 |
comment |
Jordan form and its elements Thanks! But I have no idea what conjugate means...Find its conjugate transpose or what? |
|
Jan 31 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
Jan 31 |
comment |
Jordan form and its elements Thanks! You're right! I do curious how you pick $P$ and the inverse of it. |
|
Jan 31 |
asked | Jordan form and its elements |
|
Jan 30 |
comment |
Ring theorem and isomorphic @Andreas I take your steps, and I did my proof! Thanks a lot! |
|
Jan 30 |
comment |
Ring theorem and isomorphic Thanks! @BrettFrankel I followed your advice and indeed it's much more clear! |
|
Jan 29 |
accepted | Ring theorem and isomorphic |
|
Jan 29 |
asked | Ring theorem and isomorphic |
|
Jan 20 |
asked | Find eigenvalue via Discrete Fourier Transform |
|
Jan 17 |
accepted | Notation of Matrix and Coordination |
|
Jan 17 |
asked | Notation of Matrix and Coordination |
|
Jan 12 |
comment |
Minimal polynomial and Cayley hamiliton theorem Thanks! So it is not related to minimal polynomial solution, is it? |
|
Jan 12 |
accepted | Minimal polynomial and Cayley hamiliton theorem |
|
Jan 11 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Jan 11 |
comment |
Minimal polynomial and Cayley hamiliton theorem Thanks a lot! But how come the condition A^3+A+I_n = 0 will not affect the result gained by the brute force? And why can't I use brute force to solve the problem 2? |
|
Jan 11 |
asked | Minimal polynomial and Cayley hamiliton theorem |
|
Oct 31 |
comment |
Transitive closure and invertible function Thank you! I'll try to write down some description after writing down the definition. |
|
Oct 27 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Oct 27 |
accepted | Three exercises related to the pigeonhole principle |
|
Oct 27 |
comment |
Three exercises related to the pigeonhole principle @BrianM.Scott: No, I didn't type that can't wrong. I thought the sum should be limit between 1 and 69 since 1 is the smallest postitive integer. Thus the 62 possible subsets will not be able to cover the range of the sum. So I think it can't be proved by pigeonhole principle. |