Mixing
Inverting a power series matrix
$begingroup$
Let's assume I want to invert a matrix function $M=M(x)$, which is expressed as a power series of the small parameter $epsilon$
$$M = M_0(x) + M_1(x) epsilon + M_2(x) epsilon^2 + mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$$
I would like to invert this and obtain $M^{-1}(x)$ as a series expansion itself.
Option 1 - The temptation is to invert a truncated version of $M$, but this could cause distortions, due to the possible role of the terms $mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$.
Option 2 - I could also truncate $M$ and add to it a placeholder matrix $O$, to symbolize all the terms $mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$. When I obtain the inverse, it will be in terms of $x$ and $O$. I could then substitute $Orightarrow epsilon^3$ and expand in $epsilon$ again.
None of these strike me as good methods. What would be the best way to proceed?
matrices power-series inverse perturbation-theory
asked Jan 11 at 12:43
usumdelphiniusumdelphini
323111
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's assume I want to invert a matrix function $M=M(x)$, which is expressed as a power series of the small parameter $epsilon$
$$M = M_0(x) + M_1(x) epsilon + M_2(x) epsilon^2 + mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$$
I would like to invert this and obtain $M^{-1}(x)$ as a series expansion itself.
Option 1 - The temptation is to invert a truncated version of $M$, but this could cause distortions, due to the possible role of the terms $mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$.
Option 2 - I could also truncate $M$ and add to it a placeholder matrix $O$, to symbolize all the terms $mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$. When I obtain the inverse, it will be in terms of $x$ and $O$. I could then substitute $Orightarrow epsilon^3$ and expand in $epsilon$ again.
None of these strike me as good methods. What would be the best way to proceed?
matrices power-series inverse perturbation-theory
asked Jan 11 at 12:43
usumdelphiniusumdelphini
323111
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's assume I want to invert a matrix function $M=M(x)$, which is expressed as a power series of the small parameter $epsilon$
$$M = M_0(x) + M_1(x) epsilon + M_2(x) epsilon^2 + mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$$
I would like to invert this and obtain $M^{-1}(x)$ as a series expansion itself.
Option 1 - The temptation is to invert a truncated version of $M$, but this could cause distortions, due to the possible role of the terms $mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$.
Option 2 - I could also truncate $M$ and add to it a placeholder matrix $O$, to symbolize all the terms $mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$. When I obtain the inverse, it will be in terms of $x$ and $O$. I could then substitute $Orightarrow epsilon^3$ and expand in $epsilon$ again.
None of these strike me as good methods. What would be the best way to proceed?
matrices power-series inverse perturbation-theory
asked Jan 11 at 12:43
usumdelphiniusumdelphini
323111
$endgroup$
Let's assume I want to invert a matrix function $M=M(x)$, which is expressed as a power series of the small parameter $epsilon$
$$M = M_0(x) + M_1(x) epsilon + M_2(x) epsilon^2 + mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$$
I would like to invert this and obtain $M^{-1}(x)$ as a series expansion itself.
Option 1 - The temptation is to invert a truncated version of $M$, but this could cause distortions, due to the possible role of the terms $mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$.
Option 2 - I could also truncate $M$ and add to it a placeholder matrix $O$, to symbolize all the terms $mathcal{O}(epsilon^3)$. When I obtain the inverse, it will be in terms of $x$ and $O$. I could then substitute $Orightarrow epsilon^3$ and expand in $epsilon$ again.
None of these strike me as good methods. What would be the best way to proceed?
matrices power-series inverse perturbation-theory
matrices power-series inverse perturbation-theory
asked Jan 11 at 12:43
usumdelphiniusumdelphini
323111
asked Jan 11 at 12:43
usumdelphiniusumdelphini
323111
edited Jan 11 at 14:46
usumdelphini
asked Jan 11 at 12:43
usumdelphiniusumdelphini
323111
asked Jan 11 at 12:43
usumdelphiniusumdelphini
323111
asked Jan 11 at 12:43
usumdelphiniusumdelphini
323111
323111
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Well $A = sum_{i=0}^infty a_ivarepsilon^i$ is invertible as formal power series in $varepsilon$ so long as $a_0$ is invertible. In this case if the inverse is $B = sum_{i=0}^infty b_ivarepsilon^i$ then by writing $sum_{i=0}^infty c_ivarepsilon^i = AB$, solving for the coefficients $c_i$ and setting $c_i = delta_{i,0}$ you will get coefficients. The first few terms for the inverse are:
$$b_0 = a_0^{-1},$$
$$b_1 = -a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}$$
$$b_2 = a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} -a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1}$$
$$b_3 = - a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} + a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1} + a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} - a_0^{-1}a_3a_0^{-1}$$
and I imagine you see the pattern by now (the formula is a lot easier to read if $a_0 = 1$).
However, this won't work for your function as stated because it appears the constant term is zero. Did you mean to write:
$$M(x+varepsilon) = M_0(x) + M_1(x)varepsilon + M_2(x)varepsilon^2 + O(varepsilon^3)$$
or do you really assume $M_0(x) = 0$?
If $M_0 = 0$ then $M(x+varepsilon)$ is not invertible at $varepsilon = 0$, but you can find an inverse in the punctured neighborhood around $x$, i.e. with Laurent series. If you assume $M_1$ is invertible then you can do the same thing as above to get an inverse for $varepsilon^{-1}M(x+varepsilon)$ given by:
$$M_1^{-1}(x)varepsilon^{-1} - M_1(x)^{-1}M_2(x)M_1(x)^{-1} + (cdots)varepsilon + (cdots)varepsilon^2 + O(varepsilon^3)$$
where the linear and quadratic terms are as in $b_2,b_3$ above.
ADDED:
There is no proof anywhere for the coefficients, but here is how you get them.
begin{align}
1 &= (a_0+a_1varepsilon + a_2varepsilon^2 + cdots)(b_0+b_1varepsilon + b_2varepsilon^2 + cdots)\
&= a_0b_0 + (a_1b_0 + a_0b_1)varepsilon + (a_2b_0 + a_1b_1 + a_0b_2)varepsilon^2 + (a_3b_0 + a_2b_1 + a_1b_2 + a_0b_3)varepsilon^3 + cdots
end{align}
Now:
Set $a_0b_0 = 1$ to get $b_0 = a_0^{-1}$.
All the higher terms have to be zero, so set $a_1b_0 + a_0b_1 = 0$ and substitute the value of $b_0$ to get $a_1a_0^{-1} + a_0b_1 = 0$. Now solve for $b_1$.
Plug $b_0,b_1$ into the next equation $a_2b_0 + a_1b_1 + a_0b_2 = 0$ and solve.
Keep going with this as long as you want.
Or you can prove that the formula looks a certain way:
$$b_n = sum_{n = i_1+cdots + i_r\1leq i_1,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_1}a_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}$$
You have to see that this solution satisfies $sum_{i=0}^n a_ib_{n-i} = 0$ for $n geq 1$. It seems more or less clear, but I guess it would go something like this:
begin{align}
a_0b_n &= a_0bigg(sum_{n = i_1+cdots + i_r\1leq i_1,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_1}a_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{1leq i_1 leq n} a_{i_1}bigg(sum_{n - i_1 = i_2+cdots + i_r\1leq i_2,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}a_{i_3}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{j=1}^n a_{j}bigg(sum_{n - j = j_1+cdots + j_k\ 1leq j_1,ldots, j_k} (-1)^{k-1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{j_k}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{j=1}^n(-1)a_{j}bigg(sum_{n - j = j_1+cdots + j_k\ 1leq j_1,ldots, j_k} (-1)^{k}a_0^{-1}a_{j_1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{j_k}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= (-1)sum_{j=1}^n a_jb_{n-j}
end{align}
Done. Moving to the second line I factored out $a_0^{-1}a_{i_1}$, to the next line reindexed all the sums, to the next line factored out $(-1)$, to the next line substituted the $b$ coefficients.
edited Jan 11 at 16:07
darij grinberg
10.9k33163
answered Jan 11 at 14:35
BenBen
3,736616
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could you please add a link to a proof for the coefficients' inverse formula?
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 11 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Sure, added.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 11 at 15:49
$begingroup$
Thanks, can you please have a look at this as well? math.stackexchange.com/questions/3075846/…
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 16 at 15:15
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Since the collection of doubly infinite series no longer forms a ring (you can't multiply), this is not a formal algebraic problem in the same way. There may not be an inverse anymore, you actually have to think about convergence conditions on sums of coefficients, and this makes the problem much harder. I don't have anything to add there.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 16 at 15:36
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3069794%2finverting-a-power-series-matrix%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Well $A = sum_{i=0}^infty a_ivarepsilon^i$ is invertible as formal power series in $varepsilon$ so long as $a_0$ is invertible. In this case if the inverse is $B = sum_{i=0}^infty b_ivarepsilon^i$ then by writing $sum_{i=0}^infty c_ivarepsilon^i = AB$, solving for the coefficients $c_i$ and setting $c_i = delta_{i,0}$ you will get coefficients. The first few terms for the inverse are:
$$b_0 = a_0^{-1},$$
$$b_1 = -a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}$$
$$b_2 = a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} -a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1}$$
$$b_3 = - a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} + a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1} + a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} - a_0^{-1}a_3a_0^{-1}$$
and I imagine you see the pattern by now (the formula is a lot easier to read if $a_0 = 1$).
However, this won't work for your function as stated because it appears the constant term is zero. Did you mean to write:
$$M(x+varepsilon) = M_0(x) + M_1(x)varepsilon + M_2(x)varepsilon^2 + O(varepsilon^3)$$
or do you really assume $M_0(x) = 0$?
If $M_0 = 0$ then $M(x+varepsilon)$ is not invertible at $varepsilon = 0$, but you can find an inverse in the punctured neighborhood around $x$, i.e. with Laurent series. If you assume $M_1$ is invertible then you can do the same thing as above to get an inverse for $varepsilon^{-1}M(x+varepsilon)$ given by:
$$M_1^{-1}(x)varepsilon^{-1} - M_1(x)^{-1}M_2(x)M_1(x)^{-1} + (cdots)varepsilon + (cdots)varepsilon^2 + O(varepsilon^3)$$
where the linear and quadratic terms are as in $b_2,b_3$ above.
ADDED:
There is no proof anywhere for the coefficients, but here is how you get them.
begin{align}
1 &= (a_0+a_1varepsilon + a_2varepsilon^2 + cdots)(b_0+b_1varepsilon + b_2varepsilon^2 + cdots)\
&= a_0b_0 + (a_1b_0 + a_0b_1)varepsilon + (a_2b_0 + a_1b_1 + a_0b_2)varepsilon^2 + (a_3b_0 + a_2b_1 + a_1b_2 + a_0b_3)varepsilon^3 + cdots
end{align}
Now:
Set $a_0b_0 = 1$ to get $b_0 = a_0^{-1}$.
All the higher terms have to be zero, so set $a_1b_0 + a_0b_1 = 0$ and substitute the value of $b_0$ to get $a_1a_0^{-1} + a_0b_1 = 0$. Now solve for $b_1$.
Plug $b_0,b_1$ into the next equation $a_2b_0 + a_1b_1 + a_0b_2 = 0$ and solve.
Keep going with this as long as you want.
Or you can prove that the formula looks a certain way:
$$b_n = sum_{n = i_1+cdots + i_r\1leq i_1,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_1}a_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}$$
You have to see that this solution satisfies $sum_{i=0}^n a_ib_{n-i} = 0$ for $n geq 1$. It seems more or less clear, but I guess it would go something like this:
begin{align}
a_0b_n &= a_0bigg(sum_{n = i_1+cdots + i_r\1leq i_1,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_1}a_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{1leq i_1 leq n} a_{i_1}bigg(sum_{n - i_1 = i_2+cdots + i_r\1leq i_2,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}a_{i_3}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{j=1}^n a_{j}bigg(sum_{n - j = j_1+cdots + j_k\ 1leq j_1,ldots, j_k} (-1)^{k-1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{j_k}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{j=1}^n(-1)a_{j}bigg(sum_{n - j = j_1+cdots + j_k\ 1leq j_1,ldots, j_k} (-1)^{k}a_0^{-1}a_{j_1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{j_k}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= (-1)sum_{j=1}^n a_jb_{n-j}
end{align}
Done. Moving to the second line I factored out $a_0^{-1}a_{i_1}$, to the next line reindexed all the sums, to the next line factored out $(-1)$, to the next line substituted the $b$ coefficients.
edited Jan 11 at 16:07
darij grinberg
10.9k33163
answered Jan 11 at 14:35
BenBen
3,736616
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could you please add a link to a proof for the coefficients' inverse formula?
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 11 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Sure, added.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 11 at 15:49
$begingroup$
Thanks, can you please have a look at this as well? math.stackexchange.com/questions/3075846/…
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 16 at 15:15
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Since the collection of doubly infinite series no longer forms a ring (you can't multiply), this is not a formal algebraic problem in the same way. There may not be an inverse anymore, you actually have to think about convergence conditions on sums of coefficients, and this makes the problem much harder. I don't have anything to add there.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 16 at 15:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well $A = sum_{i=0}^infty a_ivarepsilon^i$ is invertible as formal power series in $varepsilon$ so long as $a_0$ is invertible. In this case if the inverse is $B = sum_{i=0}^infty b_ivarepsilon^i$ then by writing $sum_{i=0}^infty c_ivarepsilon^i = AB$, solving for the coefficients $c_i$ and setting $c_i = delta_{i,0}$ you will get coefficients. The first few terms for the inverse are:
$$b_0 = a_0^{-1},$$
$$b_1 = -a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}$$
$$b_2 = a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} -a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1}$$
$$b_3 = - a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} + a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1} + a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} - a_0^{-1}a_3a_0^{-1}$$
and I imagine you see the pattern by now (the formula is a lot easier to read if $a_0 = 1$).
However, this won't work for your function as stated because it appears the constant term is zero. Did you mean to write:
$$M(x+varepsilon) = M_0(x) + M_1(x)varepsilon + M_2(x)varepsilon^2 + O(varepsilon^3)$$
or do you really assume $M_0(x) = 0$?
If $M_0 = 0$ then $M(x+varepsilon)$ is not invertible at $varepsilon = 0$, but you can find an inverse in the punctured neighborhood around $x$, i.e. with Laurent series. If you assume $M_1$ is invertible then you can do the same thing as above to get an inverse for $varepsilon^{-1}M(x+varepsilon)$ given by:
$$M_1^{-1}(x)varepsilon^{-1} - M_1(x)^{-1}M_2(x)M_1(x)^{-1} + (cdots)varepsilon + (cdots)varepsilon^2 + O(varepsilon^3)$$
where the linear and quadratic terms are as in $b_2,b_3$ above.
ADDED:
There is no proof anywhere for the coefficients, but here is how you get them.
begin{align}
1 &= (a_0+a_1varepsilon + a_2varepsilon^2 + cdots)(b_0+b_1varepsilon + b_2varepsilon^2 + cdots)\
&= a_0b_0 + (a_1b_0 + a_0b_1)varepsilon + (a_2b_0 + a_1b_1 + a_0b_2)varepsilon^2 + (a_3b_0 + a_2b_1 + a_1b_2 + a_0b_3)varepsilon^3 + cdots
end{align}
Now:
Set $a_0b_0 = 1$ to get $b_0 = a_0^{-1}$.
All the higher terms have to be zero, so set $a_1b_0 + a_0b_1 = 0$ and substitute the value of $b_0$ to get $a_1a_0^{-1} + a_0b_1 = 0$. Now solve for $b_1$.
Plug $b_0,b_1$ into the next equation $a_2b_0 + a_1b_1 + a_0b_2 = 0$ and solve.
Keep going with this as long as you want.
Or you can prove that the formula looks a certain way:
$$b_n = sum_{n = i_1+cdots + i_r\1leq i_1,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_1}a_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}$$
You have to see that this solution satisfies $sum_{i=0}^n a_ib_{n-i} = 0$ for $n geq 1$. It seems more or less clear, but I guess it would go something like this:
begin{align}
a_0b_n &= a_0bigg(sum_{n = i_1+cdots + i_r\1leq i_1,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_1}a_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{1leq i_1 leq n} a_{i_1}bigg(sum_{n - i_1 = i_2+cdots + i_r\1leq i_2,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}a_{i_3}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{j=1}^n a_{j}bigg(sum_{n - j = j_1+cdots + j_k\ 1leq j_1,ldots, j_k} (-1)^{k-1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{j_k}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{j=1}^n(-1)a_{j}bigg(sum_{n - j = j_1+cdots + j_k\ 1leq j_1,ldots, j_k} (-1)^{k}a_0^{-1}a_{j_1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{j_k}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= (-1)sum_{j=1}^n a_jb_{n-j}
end{align}
Done. Moving to the second line I factored out $a_0^{-1}a_{i_1}$, to the next line reindexed all the sums, to the next line factored out $(-1)$, to the next line substituted the $b$ coefficients.
edited Jan 11 at 16:07
darij grinberg
10.9k33163
answered Jan 11 at 14:35
BenBen
3,736616
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could you please add a link to a proof for the coefficients' inverse formula?
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 11 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Sure, added.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 11 at 15:49
$begingroup$
Thanks, can you please have a look at this as well? math.stackexchange.com/questions/3075846/…
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 16 at 15:15
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Since the collection of doubly infinite series no longer forms a ring (you can't multiply), this is not a formal algebraic problem in the same way. There may not be an inverse anymore, you actually have to think about convergence conditions on sums of coefficients, and this makes the problem much harder. I don't have anything to add there.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 16 at 15:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well $A = sum_{i=0}^infty a_ivarepsilon^i$ is invertible as formal power series in $varepsilon$ so long as $a_0$ is invertible. In this case if the inverse is $B = sum_{i=0}^infty b_ivarepsilon^i$ then by writing $sum_{i=0}^infty c_ivarepsilon^i = AB$, solving for the coefficients $c_i$ and setting $c_i = delta_{i,0}$ you will get coefficients. The first few terms for the inverse are:
$$b_0 = a_0^{-1},$$
$$b_1 = -a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}$$
$$b_2 = a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} -a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1}$$
$$b_3 = - a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} + a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1} + a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} - a_0^{-1}a_3a_0^{-1}$$
and I imagine you see the pattern by now (the formula is a lot easier to read if $a_0 = 1$).
However, this won't work for your function as stated because it appears the constant term is zero. Did you mean to write:
$$M(x+varepsilon) = M_0(x) + M_1(x)varepsilon + M_2(x)varepsilon^2 + O(varepsilon^3)$$
or do you really assume $M_0(x) = 0$?
If $M_0 = 0$ then $M(x+varepsilon)$ is not invertible at $varepsilon = 0$, but you can find an inverse in the punctured neighborhood around $x$, i.e. with Laurent series. If you assume $M_1$ is invertible then you can do the same thing as above to get an inverse for $varepsilon^{-1}M(x+varepsilon)$ given by:
$$M_1^{-1}(x)varepsilon^{-1} - M_1(x)^{-1}M_2(x)M_1(x)^{-1} + (cdots)varepsilon + (cdots)varepsilon^2 + O(varepsilon^3)$$
where the linear and quadratic terms are as in $b_2,b_3$ above.
ADDED:
There is no proof anywhere for the coefficients, but here is how you get them.
begin{align}
1 &= (a_0+a_1varepsilon + a_2varepsilon^2 + cdots)(b_0+b_1varepsilon + b_2varepsilon^2 + cdots)\
&= a_0b_0 + (a_1b_0 + a_0b_1)varepsilon + (a_2b_0 + a_1b_1 + a_0b_2)varepsilon^2 + (a_3b_0 + a_2b_1 + a_1b_2 + a_0b_3)varepsilon^3 + cdots
end{align}
Now:
Set $a_0b_0 = 1$ to get $b_0 = a_0^{-1}$.
All the higher terms have to be zero, so set $a_1b_0 + a_0b_1 = 0$ and substitute the value of $b_0$ to get $a_1a_0^{-1} + a_0b_1 = 0$. Now solve for $b_1$.
Plug $b_0,b_1$ into the next equation $a_2b_0 + a_1b_1 + a_0b_2 = 0$ and solve.
Keep going with this as long as you want.
Or you can prove that the formula looks a certain way:
$$b_n = sum_{n = i_1+cdots + i_r\1leq i_1,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_1}a_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}$$
You have to see that this solution satisfies $sum_{i=0}^n a_ib_{n-i} = 0$ for $n geq 1$. It seems more or less clear, but I guess it would go something like this:
begin{align}
a_0b_n &= a_0bigg(sum_{n = i_1+cdots + i_r\1leq i_1,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_1}a_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{1leq i_1 leq n} a_{i_1}bigg(sum_{n - i_1 = i_2+cdots + i_r\1leq i_2,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}a_{i_3}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{j=1}^n a_{j}bigg(sum_{n - j = j_1+cdots + j_k\ 1leq j_1,ldots, j_k} (-1)^{k-1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{j_k}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{j=1}^n(-1)a_{j}bigg(sum_{n - j = j_1+cdots + j_k\ 1leq j_1,ldots, j_k} (-1)^{k}a_0^{-1}a_{j_1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{j_k}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= (-1)sum_{j=1}^n a_jb_{n-j}
end{align}
Done. Moving to the second line I factored out $a_0^{-1}a_{i_1}$, to the next line reindexed all the sums, to the next line factored out $(-1)$, to the next line substituted the $b$ coefficients.
edited Jan 11 at 16:07
darij grinberg
10.9k33163
answered Jan 11 at 14:35
BenBen
3,736616
$endgroup$
Well $A = sum_{i=0}^infty a_ivarepsilon^i$ is invertible as formal power series in $varepsilon$ so long as $a_0$ is invertible. In this case if the inverse is $B = sum_{i=0}^infty b_ivarepsilon^i$ then by writing $sum_{i=0}^infty c_ivarepsilon^i = AB$, solving for the coefficients $c_i$ and setting $c_i = delta_{i,0}$ you will get coefficients. The first few terms for the inverse are:
$$b_0 = a_0^{-1},$$
$$b_1 = -a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}$$
$$b_2 = a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} -a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1}$$
$$b_3 = - a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} + a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1} + a_0^{-1}a_2a_0^{-1}a_1a_0^{-1} - a_0^{-1}a_3a_0^{-1}$$
and I imagine you see the pattern by now (the formula is a lot easier to read if $a_0 = 1$).
However, this won't work for your function as stated because it appears the constant term is zero. Did you mean to write:
$$M(x+varepsilon) = M_0(x) + M_1(x)varepsilon + M_2(x)varepsilon^2 + O(varepsilon^3)$$
or do you really assume $M_0(x) = 0$?
If $M_0 = 0$ then $M(x+varepsilon)$ is not invertible at $varepsilon = 0$, but you can find an inverse in the punctured neighborhood around $x$, i.e. with Laurent series. If you assume $M_1$ is invertible then you can do the same thing as above to get an inverse for $varepsilon^{-1}M(x+varepsilon)$ given by:
$$M_1^{-1}(x)varepsilon^{-1} - M_1(x)^{-1}M_2(x)M_1(x)^{-1} + (cdots)varepsilon + (cdots)varepsilon^2 + O(varepsilon^3)$$
where the linear and quadratic terms are as in $b_2,b_3$ above.
ADDED:
There is no proof anywhere for the coefficients, but here is how you get them.
begin{align}
1 &= (a_0+a_1varepsilon + a_2varepsilon^2 + cdots)(b_0+b_1varepsilon + b_2varepsilon^2 + cdots)\
&= a_0b_0 + (a_1b_0 + a_0b_1)varepsilon + (a_2b_0 + a_1b_1 + a_0b_2)varepsilon^2 + (a_3b_0 + a_2b_1 + a_1b_2 + a_0b_3)varepsilon^3 + cdots
end{align}
Now:
Set $a_0b_0 = 1$ to get $b_0 = a_0^{-1}$.
All the higher terms have to be zero, so set $a_1b_0 + a_0b_1 = 0$ and substitute the value of $b_0$ to get $a_1a_0^{-1} + a_0b_1 = 0$. Now solve for $b_1$.
Plug $b_0,b_1$ into the next equation $a_2b_0 + a_1b_1 + a_0b_2 = 0$ and solve.
Keep going with this as long as you want.
Or you can prove that the formula looks a certain way:
$$b_n = sum_{n = i_1+cdots + i_r\1leq i_1,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_1}a_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}$$
You have to see that this solution satisfies $sum_{i=0}^n a_ib_{n-i} = 0$ for $n geq 1$. It seems more or less clear, but I guess it would go something like this:
begin{align}
a_0b_n &= a_0bigg(sum_{n = i_1+cdots + i_r\1leq i_1,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_1}a_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{1leq i_1 leq n} a_{i_1}bigg(sum_{n - i_1 = i_2+cdots + i_r\1leq i_2,ldots, i_r} (-1)^ra_0^{-1}a_{i_2}a_0^{-1}a_{i_3}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{i_r}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{j=1}^n a_{j}bigg(sum_{n - j = j_1+cdots + j_k\ 1leq j_1,ldots, j_k} (-1)^{k-1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{j_k}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= sum_{j=1}^n(-1)a_{j}bigg(sum_{n - j = j_1+cdots + j_k\ 1leq j_1,ldots, j_k} (-1)^{k}a_0^{-1}a_{j_1}a_0^{-1}a_{j_2}a_0^{-1}cdots a_0^{-1}a_{j_k}a_0^{-1}bigg)\
&= (-1)sum_{j=1}^n a_jb_{n-j}
end{align}
Done. Moving to the second line I factored out $a_0^{-1}a_{i_1}$, to the next line reindexed all the sums, to the next line factored out $(-1)$, to the next line substituted the $b$ coefficients.
edited Jan 11 at 16:07
darij grinberg
10.9k33163
answered Jan 11 at 14:35
BenBen
3,736616
edited Jan 11 at 16:07
darij grinberg
10.9k33163
edited Jan 11 at 16:07
darij grinberg
10.9k33163
edited Jan 11 at 16:07
darij grinberg
10.9k33163
10.9k33163
answered Jan 11 at 14:35
BenBen
3,736616
answered Jan 11 at 14:35
BenBen
3,736616
answered Jan 11 at 14:35
BenBen
3,736616
3,736616
$begingroup$
Could you please add a link to a proof for the coefficients' inverse formula?
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 11 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Sure, added.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 11 at 15:49
$begingroup$
Thanks, can you please have a look at this as well? math.stackexchange.com/questions/3075846/…
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 16 at 15:15
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Since the collection of doubly infinite series no longer forms a ring (you can't multiply), this is not a formal algebraic problem in the same way. There may not be an inverse anymore, you actually have to think about convergence conditions on sums of coefficients, and this makes the problem much harder. I don't have anything to add there.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 16 at 15:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could you please add a link to a proof for the coefficients' inverse formula?
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 11 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Sure, added.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 11 at 15:49
$begingroup$
Thanks, can you please have a look at this as well? math.stackexchange.com/questions/3075846/…
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 16 at 15:15
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Since the collection of doubly infinite series no longer forms a ring (you can't multiply), this is not a formal algebraic problem in the same way. There may not be an inverse anymore, you actually have to think about convergence conditions on sums of coefficients, and this makes the problem much harder. I don't have anything to add there.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 16 at 15:36
$begingroup$
Could you please add a link to a proof for the coefficients' inverse formula?
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 11 at 14:48
$begingroup$
Could you please add a link to a proof for the coefficients' inverse formula?
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 11 at 14:48
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Sure, added.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 11 at 15:49
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Sure, added.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 11 at 15:49
$begingroup$
Thanks, can you please have a look at this as well? math.stackexchange.com/questions/3075846/…
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 16 at 15:15
$begingroup$
Thanks, can you please have a look at this as well? math.stackexchange.com/questions/3075846/…
$endgroup$
– usumdelphini
Jan 16 at 15:15
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Since the collection of doubly infinite series no longer forms a ring (you can't multiply), this is not a formal algebraic problem in the same way. There may not be an inverse anymore, you actually have to think about convergence conditions on sums of coefficients, and this makes the problem much harder. I don't have anything to add there.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 16 at 15:36
$begingroup$
@usumdelphini Since the collection of doubly infinite series no longer forms a ring (you can't multiply), this is not a formal algebraic problem in the same way. There may not be an inverse anymore, you actually have to think about convergence conditions on sums of coefficients, and this makes the problem much harder. I don't have anything to add there.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Jan 16 at 15:36
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3069794%2finverting-a-power-series-matrix%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
