Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Generalized inverse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article needs examples

[edit]

This article could be improved if someone knowledgeable of the subject would insert a section with examples, preferably of all types of generalized inverse addressed in the article.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I inserted examples of some types of generalized inverse. I still think it would be best to have an example of each type.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
[edit]

The external link does not work: Article 15A09 in: 15A09 Matrix inversion, generalized inverses in Mathematics Subject Classification, MathSciNet search  Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohale (talkcontribs) 21:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The dead link is now removed.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Simple computational mistake at an example

[edit]

In the example of the matrix with a right inverse, there should be a typo. 1(-17/18)+2(-2/18)+3(12/18) is not equal to 1. Hovakhshatra (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The (3,1) entry of matrix is 13/18, not 12/18. Saung Tadashi (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Inverse of other semigroups (or rings) in example

[edit]

Since the article is mainly about generalized inverses of matrices (only a single phrase in the introduction talks about the generalization to semigroups), this example feels out of place there. Saung Tadashi (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article should be renamed, so that its title clearly states that it is about matrices, while the general semigroup notion may be treated in a separate article.
Alternatively, the material on matrices may be moved into a subsection while the general semigroup definition and generic results may be highlighted in the introduction and promiment initial parts.
I am inclined to go this latter route. What do other colleagues think?
Filozofo (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. In my opinion, however, the former route is a better option for now. Saung Tadashi (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Penrose Conditions" section is removed, "Types" reorganised

[edit]

I removed the "Penrose Conditions" section [], as it was highly redundant. The definition of I-inverse was merged into the "Types" section, which was also slightly reorganised. Further, I removed the claim that

there are an infinite number of -inverses for a given with less than 4 elements

because it is obviously false. is also , but is uniquely defined. In any case, a corrected statement would be more suitable in a separate article on I-inverses.  Preceding unsigned comment added by AVM2019 (talkcontribs) 20:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply