Thread:

1. (Leslie) Matrix

I'm having difficulty trying to prove this theorem for my REU research.

I won't go into the full details of the thing I'm trying to prove as it's quite complicated. However, I am trying to solve the inverse of the following n x n matrix:

Code:
```1 0 0 0 0 ...
-s_1 1 . . . . . . .
. .  1 . . . . . .
. 0 0 . . . . .
. 0 0 -S_n (1-S_n)```
Yeah, so I am assuming the above won't come out correctly.

Any way, I want to find the inverse, and therefore the easiest thing to do would be to augment it with the identity n x n matrix.

What the above is supposed to be is (I - T), and thus we have 1's along the diagonal where the last term is (1 - S_n) and -s_1, -s_2, ..., -s_n along the sub-diagonal.

The reason for doing so is it helps me find R_0, the largest positive eigenvalue later.

As I see it, the general pattern is:

1's along the main diagonal, with s_1, s_1*s_2, s_1*s_2*s_3, ... along the sub-diagonal. The issue comes trying to determine the last elements in the matrix.

And then, perhaps the hardest part, would be trying to give a proof of why this is true. Using inducation, I would assume, would be extremely tedious and messy.

2. Originally Posted by AfterShock
I'm having difficulty trying to prove this theorem for my REU research.

I won't go into the full details of the thing I'm trying to prove as it's quite complicated. However, I am trying to solve the inverse of the following n x n matrix:

Code:
```1 0 0 0 0 ...
-s_1 1 . . . . . . .
. .  1 . . . . . .
. 0 0 . . . . .
. 0 0 -S_n (1-S_n)```
Yeah, so I am assuming the above won't come out correctly.

Any way, I want to find the inverse, and therefore the easiest thing to do would be to augment it with the identity n x n matrix.

What the above is supposed to be is (I - T), and thus we have 1's along the diagonal where the last term is (1 - S_n) and -s_1, -s_2, ..., -s_n along the sub-diagonal.

The reason for doing so is it helps me find R_0, the largest positive eigenvalue later.

As I see it, the general pattern is:

1's along the main diagonal, with s_1, s_1*s_2, s_1*s_2*s_3, ... along the sub-diagonal. The issue comes trying to determine the last elements in the matrix.

And then, perhaps the hardest part, would be trying to give a proof of why this is true. Using inducation, I would assume, would be extremely tedious and messy.
Your description of the inverse doesn't match what I get through row reducing the augmented matrix:

$A = \begin{bmatrix}<br /> 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\<br /> -s_1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & -s_2 & 1 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & -s_3 & 1- s_4 \\<br /> \end{bmatrix}$

$A^{-1} = \begin{bmatrix}<br /> 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\<br /> s_1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\<br /> s_1 s_2 & s_2 & 1 & 0 \\<br /> s_1 s_2 s_3/(1 - s_4)& s_2 s_3 /(1 - s_4)& s_3 /(1 - s_4)& 1/(1-s_4) \\<br /> \end{bmatrix}$

I don't think you'd have to prove this is the inverse. Just display a specific example like this and let the reader check that it works. It is pretty straightforward to check.
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 0, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 2, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": false, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9666008353233337, "perplexity_flag": "head"}