Qfwfq Posted February 2, 2006 Report Posted February 2, 2006 Consider a graph, not directed, the nodes of which we'll call n_i and the edges r_i. To each r_i associate a value a_i, complex if you like. Now construct a matrix A having elements as follows: Each diagonal element a_ii is the sum of any a_u such that r_u connects n_i to some other node, zero otherwise. Note: no edge may connect a node to itself. Each non-diagonal element a_ij is -a_u if an edge r_u connects n_i and n_j (the sum, if the graph isn't simple), zero otherwise. Obvious note, A will be symmetric. Chose one node n_p and add a non-zero value a to a_pp. Now invert this matrix; using ^ to indicate inversion, we could call it B = (A + P)^ where P has the one element of value a and all others zero. I say: B_pp = 1/a. Easy to prove? Quote
CraigD Posted February 5, 2006 Report Posted February 5, 2006 Consider a graph...Can you provide a short example graph and matrixes A, P, and B? :singer: Quote
Qfwfq Posted February 6, 2006 Author Report Posted February 6, 2006 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/GraphTheory.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Graph.html A trivial graph with one node and no edges would give the one by one matrix with element 0. An edge between two nodes would give a two by two symmetric matrix with elements differing only by sign. In any case the sum for each row, or column, is 0. Admittedly I wrote the post a bit hurriedly, I could have been clearer about constructing the matrix. I could have said that a_ij and a_ji are both equal to minus the summed a values of any edges between the n_i and n_j, zero if there are no edges between those two nodes. Of course, you might as well have at most one edge between each pair of nodes. I was interested to know if there is a proof simpler and more straightforward than the indirect reason I had for stating the thesis, but yesterday I found enough time to find one. A necessary condition for the invertibility of A + P is that the graph be a single connected component and the value of a not zero, I'm still trying to glean a bit more about sufficient conditions. It would be comfortable since I might need to use this in the job I'm doing. Actually it could be stated in terms of the matrix elements except that I'm not 100% sure whether or not the graph might help about sufficient conditions for invertibility. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.