MHB What are the correcting words for matrices with equal integral entries?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around correcting terminology in a research article about 2x2 matrices with equal integral entries. The poster seeks guidance on whether to use "having" or another term to clarify the definitions of sets S and T. It highlights the frustration experienced due to repeated errors in phrasing. The conclusion emphasizes that while elements in set T can be factored, they are not uniquely factorable, and future research may explore similar theorems for larger matrices. The thread ultimately aims to refine the language for clarity in mathematical communication.
cbarker1
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
345
Reaction score
23
Dear Everyone,

I am trying to figure what is the correct phrase in the bolden phrase. The article, where I am doing my research on, states: Let S be the set of all 2x2 matrices with equal positive integral entries. Let T be the set of all 2x2 matrices with equal integral entries. My professors are getting frustrated due to the circle effect that I am making the same error over many times. So what is the correcting words that fixed? Is it "having" or other words.

Beginning:

Different algebraic systems raise many questions. For instance, can the elements in a given system always be factored into primes? If so, what theorems can help factoring the elements? Are the factors unique? The poster will discuss the answers to these questions through examples and theorems for a class of $2\times2$ matrices with equal integers entries.
Let $S$ be the set of all $2\times2$ matrices with equal positive integers entries.

Conclusion:
The elements of the set $T$ can always be factored; however, most of the elements in the set $T$ are not uniquely factorable. There are theorems that can assist in determining the factorization of elements of $T$. Future investigation might include studying whether there are similar theorems for each class of $n\times n$ matrices with equal integers entries.
Thanks,
Cbarker1
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Re: writing a correction phrase in a poster

Dear Fellow Members,

I am trying to figure out how to correct the bold phrases below. The article on which I am doing my research states: Let $S$ be the set of all 2x2 matrices with equal positive integral entries and let $T$ be the set of all 2x2 matrices with equal integral entries. My professors are getting frustrated due to the circular effect that I am creating. I am making the same error many times. So how do I fix these? Do I use "having" or another word?

Beginning:

Different algebraic systems raise many questions. For instance, can the elements in a given system always be factored into primes? If so, what theorems can help factor the elements? Are the factors unique? The poster will discuss the answers to these questions through examples and theorems for a class of 2x2 matrices with equal integer entries.

Let $S$ be the set of all 2x2 matrices with equal positive integer entries.

Conclusion:
The elements of the set $T$ can always be factored; however, most of the elements in the set $T$ are not uniquely factorisable. There are theorems that can assist in determining the factorisation of the elements of $T$. Future investigation might include studying whether there are similar theorems for each class of nxn matrices with equal integer entries.

Hi CBarker1.

Above is a corrected version of the material in your original post. Compare the two and ask questions about anything you need clarification on.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top