wu :: forums
« wu :: forums - matrix »

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jul 6th, 2022, 3:37pm

RIDDLES SITE WRITE MATH! Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
   wu :: forums
   riddles
   putnam exam (pure math)
(Moderators: Eigenray, Grimbal, william wu, towr, SMQ, Icarus)
   matrix
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: matrix  (Read 1895 times)
temporary
Full Member
***





   


Posts: 255
matrix  
« on: Apr 8th, 2008, 9:24pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Construct a matrix where all numbers in it add up to 0, but with no negatives, no imaginary part greater than 0, and no 0s. This is not impossible, nor does it use infinity or something like that. Hint:there are infinite solutions
« Last Edit: Apr 16th, 2008, 8:23pm by temporary » IP Logged

My goal is to find what my goal is, once I find what my goal is, my goal will be complete.
Obob
Senior Riddler
****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 489
Re: matrix  
« Reply #1 on: Apr 9th, 2008, 9:50am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Yeah, no...
 
You are asking for a series of positive numbers summing to zero.  Even in nonstandard interpretations of "number," this is not possible, because those interpretations do not also have an ordering.
IP Logged
Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 500
Re: matrix  
« Reply #2 on: Apr 9th, 2008, 12:55pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

[ 2 1 ]
[ 1 2 ]    
 
mod 3  works.
 
IP Logged

Regards,
Michael Dagg
Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 500
Re: matrix  
« Reply #3 on: Apr 9th, 2008, 1:19pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Since you might have also meant the sums along  
the diagnoals then
 
 
[3 1 2]
[1 2 3]
[2 3 1]
 
mod 6  works.
 
Anyone got a general form?
 
 
IP Logged

Regards,
Michael Dagg
Obob
Senior Riddler
****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 489
Re: matrix  
« Reply #4 on: Apr 9th, 2008, 2:47pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

But is 2 > 0 mod 3?
IP Logged
temporary
Full Member
***





   


Posts: 255
Re: matrix  
« Reply #5 on: Apr 11th, 2008, 11:18pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I have no idea what all this "mod" stuff is, but it is not part of the answer.
IP Logged

My goal is to find what my goal is, once I find what my goal is, my goal will be complete.
Obob
Senior Riddler
****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 489
Re: matrix  
« Reply #6 on: Apr 11th, 2008, 11:25pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Is it not part of the answer because there is no mod stuff in the answer, or is it not part of the answer because there is no answer?
 
I suspect both are true...
IP Logged
TJMann
Newbie
*





   


Posts: 18
Re: matrix  
« Reply #7 on: Apr 12th, 2008, 7:52am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I get zero with both matrices. What makes this possible is the integers mod 3 and mod 6 wrap around. In mod 3,  2+1 = 3 = 0, so 2+1 + 1+2 = 6 = 0.  In mod 6, 3+1+2 = 6, so (3+1+2) + (1+2+3) + (2+3+1) = 18 = 0.
« Last Edit: Apr 12th, 2008, 7:57am by TJMann » IP Logged
pex
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 880
Re: matrix  
« Reply #8 on: Apr 12th, 2008, 8:14am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

It's a bit of a stretch, but the following 2x1 matrix seems to fit the criteria:
 
[ 1-i ]
[ i-1 ]
 
- All numbers add up to zero: obvious.
- No negatives: nonreal complex numbers are neither "positive" nor "negative".
- No imaginary numbers: the numbers in this matrix are complex, but not imaginary, because the real parts are nonzero.
- No zeros: obvious.
- No "infinity or something like that": obvious.
IP Logged
Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 500
Re: matrix  
« Reply #9 on: Apr 15th, 2008, 10:42pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

> But is 2 > 0 mod 3?  
 
If you are asking if there is order in the  
ring  Z_3  then the answer is no.  This in no
way invalidates addition modulo 3, including  
multiplication; in fact, it is the other way around.
 
 
« Last Edit: Apr 15th, 2008, 10:44pm by Michael Dagg » IP Logged

Regards,
Michael Dagg
Obob
Senior Riddler
****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 489
Re: matrix  
« Reply #10 on: Apr 16th, 2008, 8:10am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Yes, I slightly misread the original post.  By reading "no negatives, no imaginary numbers, and no 0s" I automatically concluded that meant "positive numbers."  You could either interpret imaginary numbers as "purely imaginary" numbers, as pex did, or do some modular arithmetic example and just say that the elements are not negative or imaginary, since those terms don't even make sense.
 
At any rate, though, this riddle is mostly a wad of nonsense.  At least the intended solution is.
IP Logged
temporary
Full Member
***





   


Posts: 255
Re: matrix  
« Reply #11 on: Apr 16th, 2008, 8:17pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Apr 12th, 2008, 8:14am, pex wrote:
It's a bit of a stretch, but the following 2x1 matrix seems to fit the criteria:
 
[ 1-i ]
[ i-1 ]
 
- All numbers add up to zero: obvious.
- No negatives: nonreal complex numbers are neither "positive" nor "negative".
- No imaginary numbers: the numbers in this matrix are complex, but not imaginary, because the real parts are nonzero.
- No zeros: obvious.
- No "infinity or something like that": obvious.

I might have misphrased it, but you did kind of use negative numbers anyway. I'll fix the misphrase to avoid confusing anyone.
« Last Edit: Apr 16th, 2008, 8:29pm by temporary » IP Logged

My goal is to find what my goal is, once I find what my goal is, my goal will be complete.
pex
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 880
Re: matrix  
« Reply #12 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 1:27am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Okay... so we either need a nonstandard definition of addition, or a different set of numbers than real or complex numbers.
 
For example, in the 10-adic numbers, ...9999999 + 1 = 0. (The representation ...9999999 is infinite, but the number it represents isn't - does that count?)
IP Logged
pex
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 880
Re: matrix  
« Reply #13 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 4:34am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Just a thought that crossed my mind: is there a sensible way to define matrices of dimensions m x n, with m or n equal to zero? If yes, one might argue that the sum of its elements (an empty set) equals zero, and matrices of dimensions 0x0, 0x1, 1x0, 0x2, 2x0, 0x3, 3x0, ... would work.
IP Logged
Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 500
Re: matrix  
« Reply #14 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 3:24pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Of course I would have hardly guessed that
those kind of matrices would be involved in  
solution a here, but some matrices like these can
pop up when finite groups are wrote using Smith  
Normal Form, in particular, subgroups of
G = (Z/p^2 Z) x (Z/pZ)  for example.
IP Logged

Regards,
Michael Dagg
TJMann
Newbie
*





   


Posts: 18
Re: matrix  
« Reply #15 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 5:37pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Being curious but knowing a just little about groups, how do you make the product (Z/p^2Z) X (Z/pZ)?  I looked my algebra book about it but I did not see an explicit way to actually do it or should I think that it is just a "product" through the use of notation?
IP Logged
Obob
Senior Riddler
****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 489
Re: matrix  
« Reply #16 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 7:58pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Given two groups G and H, you form the product G X H as the set of all pairs (g,h), where g is in G and h is in H.  You multiply pairs (g1,h1) and (g2,h2) by the rule (g1,h1) * (g2,h2) = (g1 * g2,h1 * h2).  So this is totally explicit, but it is also essentially just taking the product through the use of notation.
IP Logged
TJMann
Newbie
*





   


Posts: 18
Re: matrix  
« Reply #17 on: Apr 18th, 2008, 5:05pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Thx. I did know that and it seems to fit the idea that I thinking because if we have p = 2 then we have the product (Z/4Z) X (Z/2Z) which is more specific that the general form wrote but aren't both Z/4Z and Z/2Z finite fields? One is of length 4 and the other is of length 2 and now that means the product would effectively be a 4 x 2 - tuple?  Groups that I know about don't go that far as to require what I suppose are called lists.
IP Logged
Obob
Senior Riddler
****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 489
Re: matrix  
« Reply #18 on: Apr 19th, 2008, 7:46pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Z/4Z is not a field.  2 has no multiplicative inverse in Z/4Z.  But you can view Z/4Z x Z/2Z as a two-tuple of numbers, one coming from the set {0,1,2,3} and the other coming from {0,1}.  The group Z/4Z x Z/2Z does in fact have 8 elements.
IP Logged
temporary
Full Member
***





   


Posts: 255
Re: matrix  
« Reply #19 on: Apr 22nd, 2008, 5:11pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Apr 17th, 2008, 4:34am, pex wrote:
Just a thought that crossed my mind: is there a sensible way to define matrices of dimensions m x n, with m or n equal to zero? If yes, one might argue that the sum of its elements (an empty set) equals zero, and matrices of dimensions 0x0, 0x1, 1x0, 0x2, 2x0, 0x3, 3x0, ... would work.

Yep. That pretty much hits the nail on the head.
IP Logged

My goal is to find what my goal is, once I find what my goal is, my goal will be complete.
Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 500
Re: matrix  
« Reply #20 on: Apr 22nd, 2008, 7:02pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

> Yep. That pretty much hits the nail on the head.  
 
That's stated lightly -- got a proof?
 
IP Logged

Regards,
Michael Dagg
temporary
Full Member
***





   


Posts: 255
Re: matrix  
« Reply #21 on: Apr 24th, 2008, 6:53pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Isn't it obvious and self-proven. A matrix with no numbers has to add up to 0. And I am prepared to bet 1ud8f7g6g6v7v7v7 dollars that it does. And the only time I bet something I don't have is when it doesn't matter because I win.
IP Logged

My goal is to find what my goal is, once I find what my goal is, my goal will be complete.
Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 500
Re: matrix  
« Reply #22 on: Apr 24th, 2008, 7:11pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

That is not a solution to the problem you posted.
 
It is technically clear, do you know why?
IP Logged

Regards,
Michael Dagg
temporary
Full Member
***





   


Posts: 255
Re: matrix  
« Reply #23 on: Apr 24th, 2008, 7:26pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

There is an answer. A matrix with no numbers(like 0x3, 1x0, 9x0, 0x(pi+e), etc) Where have you been for the last several posts.
IP Logged

My goal is to find what my goal is, once I find what my goal is, my goal will be complete.
Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 500
Re: matrix  
« Reply #24 on: Apr 24th, 2008, 7:42pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

A matrix with no numbers is not a solution to the  
problem you posted. It is true that a sum on an  
empty set is zero but it does not satisfy the  
hypothesis of your problem.
 
IP Logged

Regards,
Michael Dagg
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board