Where did this useful matrix decomposition come from for Nodal Analysis? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Ebers–Moll model aF? Where does it come from?Singular matrix in nodal analysis?Does the resistor values used for opamp circuits come from the equations?Finding current over controllable voltage source using nodal analysisDetermine Y-parameters for given circuit. [Used Nodal Analysis]

Project Euler #1 in C++

AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network

Can you force honesty by using the Speak with Dead and Zone of Truth spells together?

Google .dev domain strangely redirects to https

Can two people see the same photon?

What is the difference between a "ranged attack" and a "ranged weapon attack"?

Flight departed from the gate 5 min before scheduled departure time. Refund options

Random body shuffle every night—can we still function?

Getting out of while loop on console

A proverb that is used to imply that you have unexpectedly faced a big problem

Was Kant an Intuitionist about mathematical objects?

How much damage would a cupful of neutron star matter do to the Earth?

One-one communication

Why datecode is SO IMPORTANT to chip manufacturers?

How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?

How to ask rejected full-time candidates to apply to teach individual courses?

Why not send Voyager 3 and 4 following up the paths taken by Voyager 1 and 2 to re-transmit signals of later as they fly away from Earth?

Weaponising the Grasp-at-a-Distance spell

A term for a woman complaining about things/begging in a cute/childish way

Where did this useful matrix decomposition come from for Nodal Analysis?

What initially awakened the Balrog?

Tannaka duality for semisimple groups

What is the origin of 落第?

Simple Http Server



Where did this useful matrix decomposition come from for Nodal Analysis?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Ebers–Moll model aF? Where does it come from?Singular matrix in nodal analysis?Does the resistor values used for opamp circuits come from the equations?Finding current over controllable voltage source using nodal analysisDetermine Y-parameters for given circuit. [Used Nodal Analysis]



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








1












$begingroup$


Background



The equations formed when finding the nodal voltages of a circuit can be expressed using nodal analysis as a square system matrix $mathbfS$ (lets say $mtimes m$) which describes the connections and values of the conductances that correspond to these connections, and can express a whole circuit as
$$
mathbfSv = mathbfi
$$

where $mathbfv$ is the collection of nodal voltages and $mathbfi$ are the input current sources.



Super useful matrix decomposition



In this paper, I have seen this decomposed into (for a single impedance type, e.g. resistance)
$$
mathbfS = mathbfN G N^mathrmT
$$

where $mathbfN$ specifies the connections, and is an $mtimes m$ incidence matrix which contain only values of 1, 0 and -1, and $mathbfG$ is an $mtimes m$ diagonal matrix containing the conductance values.



This is a ridiculously useful property as it separates the conductances from the connections making them both easily readable. No matrix decompositions I've read up on have made it clear how this works or how you'd intuitively think to apply this decomposition. Could someone explain this?



Notes



The paper actually uses modified nodal analysis but this doesn't change the application as the decomposition is only used on the nodal aspects of the circuit, not the voltage sources.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$


















    1












    $begingroup$


    Background



    The equations formed when finding the nodal voltages of a circuit can be expressed using nodal analysis as a square system matrix $mathbfS$ (lets say $mtimes m$) which describes the connections and values of the conductances that correspond to these connections, and can express a whole circuit as
    $$
    mathbfSv = mathbfi
    $$

    where $mathbfv$ is the collection of nodal voltages and $mathbfi$ are the input current sources.



    Super useful matrix decomposition



    In this paper, I have seen this decomposed into (for a single impedance type, e.g. resistance)
    $$
    mathbfS = mathbfN G N^mathrmT
    $$

    where $mathbfN$ specifies the connections, and is an $mtimes m$ incidence matrix which contain only values of 1, 0 and -1, and $mathbfG$ is an $mtimes m$ diagonal matrix containing the conductance values.



    This is a ridiculously useful property as it separates the conductances from the connections making them both easily readable. No matrix decompositions I've read up on have made it clear how this works or how you'd intuitively think to apply this decomposition. Could someone explain this?



    Notes



    The paper actually uses modified nodal analysis but this doesn't change the application as the decomposition is only used on the nodal aspects of the circuit, not the voltage sources.










    share|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      Background



      The equations formed when finding the nodal voltages of a circuit can be expressed using nodal analysis as a square system matrix $mathbfS$ (lets say $mtimes m$) which describes the connections and values of the conductances that correspond to these connections, and can express a whole circuit as
      $$
      mathbfSv = mathbfi
      $$

      where $mathbfv$ is the collection of nodal voltages and $mathbfi$ are the input current sources.



      Super useful matrix decomposition



      In this paper, I have seen this decomposed into (for a single impedance type, e.g. resistance)
      $$
      mathbfS = mathbfN G N^mathrmT
      $$

      where $mathbfN$ specifies the connections, and is an $mtimes m$ incidence matrix which contain only values of 1, 0 and -1, and $mathbfG$ is an $mtimes m$ diagonal matrix containing the conductance values.



      This is a ridiculously useful property as it separates the conductances from the connections making them both easily readable. No matrix decompositions I've read up on have made it clear how this works or how you'd intuitively think to apply this decomposition. Could someone explain this?



      Notes



      The paper actually uses modified nodal analysis but this doesn't change the application as the decomposition is only used on the nodal aspects of the circuit, not the voltage sources.










      share|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Background



      The equations formed when finding the nodal voltages of a circuit can be expressed using nodal analysis as a square system matrix $mathbfS$ (lets say $mtimes m$) which describes the connections and values of the conductances that correspond to these connections, and can express a whole circuit as
      $$
      mathbfSv = mathbfi
      $$

      where $mathbfv$ is the collection of nodal voltages and $mathbfi$ are the input current sources.



      Super useful matrix decomposition



      In this paper, I have seen this decomposed into (for a single impedance type, e.g. resistance)
      $$
      mathbfS = mathbfN G N^mathrmT
      $$

      where $mathbfN$ specifies the connections, and is an $mtimes m$ incidence matrix which contain only values of 1, 0 and -1, and $mathbfG$ is an $mtimes m$ diagonal matrix containing the conductance values.



      This is a ridiculously useful property as it separates the conductances from the connections making them both easily readable. No matrix decompositions I've read up on have made it clear how this works or how you'd intuitively think to apply this decomposition. Could someone explain this?



      Notes



      The paper actually uses modified nodal analysis but this doesn't change the application as the decomposition is only used on the nodal aspects of the circuit, not the voltage sources.







      math nodal-analysis






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 6 hours ago









      loudnoisesloudnoises

      1,382920




      1,382920




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          According to the document you linked, it appears to me that $mathbfN$ isn't $mtimes m$. Instead, it has one row per two-terminal circuit element (from a quick reading) and one column for each circuit node.



          This technique has been used for decades in computing to create connections. I've used them for finding Hamiltonian cycles in graphs, for example. It's a really simple way of expressing connections.



          For example, here's a 35-year old piece of code I wrote to test out a method for finding the existence of such cycles:



          #include <stdio.h>
          #include <stdlib.h>
          typedef enum false= 0, true= 1 bool_t;
          void hamPrint( int n, int *path )
          int i;
          for ( i= 0; i < n; ++i )
          printf( " %d ", path[i] );
          printf( " %dn", path[0] );
          return;

          bool_t hamOkay( int n, int v, bool_t *graph, int *path, int pos )
          int i;
          if ( graph[ path[pos-1]*n + v ] == false ) return false;
          for ( i= 0; i < pos; ++i ) if ( path[i] == v ) return false;
          return true;

          bool_t hamCycleSolver( int n, bool_t *graph, int *path, int pos )
          int v;
          if ( pos == n )
          return graph[ path[pos-1]*n + path[0] ];
          for ( v= 1; v < n; ++v )
          if ( hamOkay( n, v, graph, path, pos ) )
          path[pos]= v;
          if ( hamCycleSolver( n, graph, path, pos+1 ) == true )
          return true;
          path[pos]= -1;

          return false;

          bool_t hamCycleExist( int n, bool_t *graph )
          bool_t stat;
          int i, *path= (int *) malloc( sizeof(int) * n );
          if ( path == NULL ) return false;
          for ( i= 0; i < n; ++i )
          path[i]= -1;
          path[0]= 0;
          stat= hamCycleSolver( n, graph, path, 1 );
          if ( stat == true ) hamPrint( n, path );
          free( path );
          return stat;

          bool_t graph[][5]= */
          1, 1, 0, 0, 1 , /* ;
          int main( void )
          if ( hamCycleExist( sizeof(graph)/sizeof(graph[0]), (bool_t *) graph ) )
          printf( "Graph is Hamiltoniann" );
          else
          printf( "Graph is not Hamiltoniann" );
          return 0;



          Take note of the use of a connection matrix in the matrix graph. In this case, the connections must be specified in both directions. So there are "1"s specified to connect, for example, node 0 to node 1 and also node 1 to node 0. So it's easy to change this matrix to specify a path from node 0 to node 1 without specifying a path from node 1 to node 0, here. I just didn't do that, in the above case. All connections there are explicitly arranged to work in both directions.



          If interested, you can simply multiply such a matrix by an appropriate vector to get a vector of connections for each entry in the appropriate vector, too.



          In any case, here is a web page I readily found on google that may also help demonstrate that these ideas have been around for a long time and are in regular use:
          Graph representations.



          I had simply borrowed the idea, myself. I didn't invent it. So it pre-dates my use. And that means it is practically ancient. ;) I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear it dates into the 1800's.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




















            1












            $begingroup$

            I'm no mathematician but I feel strongly this is related to the singular value decomposition (SVD) or eigendecomposition.



            I first came across SVD in the context of modelling MIMO communication systems, particularly those using spatial multiplexing. I'll try to detail this to explain why I think it relates to your problem which I am not able to answer directly.



            Consider a time-invariant, noiseless MIMO channel. This can be represented as.



            $
            mathbfy = H(omega)mathbfx
            $



            Where H is a matrix of transfer functions between the various parallel channels. Ideally, H would be diagonal and there would be no coupling between each channel. The presence of off-diagonal entries means that equalization will be required to prevent the channels interfering.



            The SVD decomposes H into



            $
            H = ULambda V^*
            $



            Where $U$ and $V$ can be thought of as rotations and $Lambda $ is a diagonal matrix that simply scales each channel individually. $U$ and $V$ are both unitary matrices, so their inverses are their conjugate transposes. The columns of U and V also form orthonormal basis, so they can be thought of as the natural 'coordinate system' for solving the problem.



            Intuitively, it takes the input channels, which are not orthogonal, and applies a transformation at the input and output that makes the behavior of the channel very simple, just attenuation (the matrix $Lambda $).



            This has application to equalization, if we pre-multiply our input signals with $V$, pass it through the channel, and apply $U^*$ to the output. We get,



            $
            mathbfy = U^*ULambda V^*Vmathbfx \
            mathbfy = Lambda mathbfx
            $



            Which gives us completely orthogonal channels that do not interfere. This reminds me very much of your problem, the connection matrices being the natural orthogonal basis to use, and the conductances simply scaling these.



            The SVD also has some interesting applications in image processing



            Edit: The decomposition in question is definitely an eigenvalue decomposition, of which the SVD can be thought of as a generalization.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













              Your Answer






              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("schematics", function ()
              StackExchange.schematics.init();
              );
              , "cicuitlab");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "135"
              ;
              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: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              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
              ,
              onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f433641%2fwhere-did-this-useful-matrix-decomposition-come-from-for-nodal-analysis%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              1












              $begingroup$

              According to the document you linked, it appears to me that $mathbfN$ isn't $mtimes m$. Instead, it has one row per two-terminal circuit element (from a quick reading) and one column for each circuit node.



              This technique has been used for decades in computing to create connections. I've used them for finding Hamiltonian cycles in graphs, for example. It's a really simple way of expressing connections.



              For example, here's a 35-year old piece of code I wrote to test out a method for finding the existence of such cycles:



              #include <stdio.h>
              #include <stdlib.h>
              typedef enum false= 0, true= 1 bool_t;
              void hamPrint( int n, int *path )
              int i;
              for ( i= 0; i < n; ++i )
              printf( " %d ", path[i] );
              printf( " %dn", path[0] );
              return;

              bool_t hamOkay( int n, int v, bool_t *graph, int *path, int pos )
              int i;
              if ( graph[ path[pos-1]*n + v ] == false ) return false;
              for ( i= 0; i < pos; ++i ) if ( path[i] == v ) return false;
              return true;

              bool_t hamCycleSolver( int n, bool_t *graph, int *path, int pos )
              int v;
              if ( pos == n )
              return graph[ path[pos-1]*n + path[0] ];
              for ( v= 1; v < n; ++v )
              if ( hamOkay( n, v, graph, path, pos ) )
              path[pos]= v;
              if ( hamCycleSolver( n, graph, path, pos+1 ) == true )
              return true;
              path[pos]= -1;

              return false;

              bool_t hamCycleExist( int n, bool_t *graph )
              bool_t stat;
              int i, *path= (int *) malloc( sizeof(int) * n );
              if ( path == NULL ) return false;
              for ( i= 0; i < n; ++i )
              path[i]= -1;
              path[0]= 0;
              stat= hamCycleSolver( n, graph, path, 1 );
              if ( stat == true ) hamPrint( n, path );
              free( path );
              return stat;

              bool_t graph[][5]= */
              1, 1, 0, 0, 1 , /* ;
              int main( void )
              if ( hamCycleExist( sizeof(graph)/sizeof(graph[0]), (bool_t *) graph ) )
              printf( "Graph is Hamiltoniann" );
              else
              printf( "Graph is not Hamiltoniann" );
              return 0;



              Take note of the use of a connection matrix in the matrix graph. In this case, the connections must be specified in both directions. So there are "1"s specified to connect, for example, node 0 to node 1 and also node 1 to node 0. So it's easy to change this matrix to specify a path from node 0 to node 1 without specifying a path from node 1 to node 0, here. I just didn't do that, in the above case. All connections there are explicitly arranged to work in both directions.



              If interested, you can simply multiply such a matrix by an appropriate vector to get a vector of connections for each entry in the appropriate vector, too.



              In any case, here is a web page I readily found on google that may also help demonstrate that these ideas have been around for a long time and are in regular use:
              Graph representations.



              I had simply borrowed the idea, myself. I didn't invent it. So it pre-dates my use. And that means it is practically ancient. ;) I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear it dates into the 1800's.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                1












                $begingroup$

                According to the document you linked, it appears to me that $mathbfN$ isn't $mtimes m$. Instead, it has one row per two-terminal circuit element (from a quick reading) and one column for each circuit node.



                This technique has been used for decades in computing to create connections. I've used them for finding Hamiltonian cycles in graphs, for example. It's a really simple way of expressing connections.



                For example, here's a 35-year old piece of code I wrote to test out a method for finding the existence of such cycles:



                #include <stdio.h>
                #include <stdlib.h>
                typedef enum false= 0, true= 1 bool_t;
                void hamPrint( int n, int *path )
                int i;
                for ( i= 0; i < n; ++i )
                printf( " %d ", path[i] );
                printf( " %dn", path[0] );
                return;

                bool_t hamOkay( int n, int v, bool_t *graph, int *path, int pos )
                int i;
                if ( graph[ path[pos-1]*n + v ] == false ) return false;
                for ( i= 0; i < pos; ++i ) if ( path[i] == v ) return false;
                return true;

                bool_t hamCycleSolver( int n, bool_t *graph, int *path, int pos )
                int v;
                if ( pos == n )
                return graph[ path[pos-1]*n + path[0] ];
                for ( v= 1; v < n; ++v )
                if ( hamOkay( n, v, graph, path, pos ) )
                path[pos]= v;
                if ( hamCycleSolver( n, graph, path, pos+1 ) == true )
                return true;
                path[pos]= -1;

                return false;

                bool_t hamCycleExist( int n, bool_t *graph )
                bool_t stat;
                int i, *path= (int *) malloc( sizeof(int) * n );
                if ( path == NULL ) return false;
                for ( i= 0; i < n; ++i )
                path[i]= -1;
                path[0]= 0;
                stat= hamCycleSolver( n, graph, path, 1 );
                if ( stat == true ) hamPrint( n, path );
                free( path );
                return stat;

                bool_t graph[][5]= */
                1, 1, 0, 0, 1 , /* ;
                int main( void )
                if ( hamCycleExist( sizeof(graph)/sizeof(graph[0]), (bool_t *) graph ) )
                printf( "Graph is Hamiltoniann" );
                else
                printf( "Graph is not Hamiltoniann" );
                return 0;



                Take note of the use of a connection matrix in the matrix graph. In this case, the connections must be specified in both directions. So there are "1"s specified to connect, for example, node 0 to node 1 and also node 1 to node 0. So it's easy to change this matrix to specify a path from node 0 to node 1 without specifying a path from node 1 to node 0, here. I just didn't do that, in the above case. All connections there are explicitly arranged to work in both directions.



                If interested, you can simply multiply such a matrix by an appropriate vector to get a vector of connections for each entry in the appropriate vector, too.



                In any case, here is a web page I readily found on google that may also help demonstrate that these ideas have been around for a long time and are in regular use:
                Graph representations.



                I had simply borrowed the idea, myself. I didn't invent it. So it pre-dates my use. And that means it is practically ancient. ;) I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear it dates into the 1800's.






                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  According to the document you linked, it appears to me that $mathbfN$ isn't $mtimes m$. Instead, it has one row per two-terminal circuit element (from a quick reading) and one column for each circuit node.



                  This technique has been used for decades in computing to create connections. I've used them for finding Hamiltonian cycles in graphs, for example. It's a really simple way of expressing connections.



                  For example, here's a 35-year old piece of code I wrote to test out a method for finding the existence of such cycles:



                  #include <stdio.h>
                  #include <stdlib.h>
                  typedef enum false= 0, true= 1 bool_t;
                  void hamPrint( int n, int *path )
                  int i;
                  for ( i= 0; i < n; ++i )
                  printf( " %d ", path[i] );
                  printf( " %dn", path[0] );
                  return;

                  bool_t hamOkay( int n, int v, bool_t *graph, int *path, int pos )
                  int i;
                  if ( graph[ path[pos-1]*n + v ] == false ) return false;
                  for ( i= 0; i < pos; ++i ) if ( path[i] == v ) return false;
                  return true;

                  bool_t hamCycleSolver( int n, bool_t *graph, int *path, int pos )
                  int v;
                  if ( pos == n )
                  return graph[ path[pos-1]*n + path[0] ];
                  for ( v= 1; v < n; ++v )
                  if ( hamOkay( n, v, graph, path, pos ) )
                  path[pos]= v;
                  if ( hamCycleSolver( n, graph, path, pos+1 ) == true )
                  return true;
                  path[pos]= -1;

                  return false;

                  bool_t hamCycleExist( int n, bool_t *graph )
                  bool_t stat;
                  int i, *path= (int *) malloc( sizeof(int) * n );
                  if ( path == NULL ) return false;
                  for ( i= 0; i < n; ++i )
                  path[i]= -1;
                  path[0]= 0;
                  stat= hamCycleSolver( n, graph, path, 1 );
                  if ( stat == true ) hamPrint( n, path );
                  free( path );
                  return stat;

                  bool_t graph[][5]= */
                  1, 1, 0, 0, 1 , /* ;
                  int main( void )
                  if ( hamCycleExist( sizeof(graph)/sizeof(graph[0]), (bool_t *) graph ) )
                  printf( "Graph is Hamiltoniann" );
                  else
                  printf( "Graph is not Hamiltoniann" );
                  return 0;



                  Take note of the use of a connection matrix in the matrix graph. In this case, the connections must be specified in both directions. So there are "1"s specified to connect, for example, node 0 to node 1 and also node 1 to node 0. So it's easy to change this matrix to specify a path from node 0 to node 1 without specifying a path from node 1 to node 0, here. I just didn't do that, in the above case. All connections there are explicitly arranged to work in both directions.



                  If interested, you can simply multiply such a matrix by an appropriate vector to get a vector of connections for each entry in the appropriate vector, too.



                  In any case, here is a web page I readily found on google that may also help demonstrate that these ideas have been around for a long time and are in regular use:
                  Graph representations.



                  I had simply borrowed the idea, myself. I didn't invent it. So it pre-dates my use. And that means it is practically ancient. ;) I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear it dates into the 1800's.






                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  According to the document you linked, it appears to me that $mathbfN$ isn't $mtimes m$. Instead, it has one row per two-terminal circuit element (from a quick reading) and one column for each circuit node.



                  This technique has been used for decades in computing to create connections. I've used them for finding Hamiltonian cycles in graphs, for example. It's a really simple way of expressing connections.



                  For example, here's a 35-year old piece of code I wrote to test out a method for finding the existence of such cycles:



                  #include <stdio.h>
                  #include <stdlib.h>
                  typedef enum false= 0, true= 1 bool_t;
                  void hamPrint( int n, int *path )
                  int i;
                  for ( i= 0; i < n; ++i )
                  printf( " %d ", path[i] );
                  printf( " %dn", path[0] );
                  return;

                  bool_t hamOkay( int n, int v, bool_t *graph, int *path, int pos )
                  int i;
                  if ( graph[ path[pos-1]*n + v ] == false ) return false;
                  for ( i= 0; i < pos; ++i ) if ( path[i] == v ) return false;
                  return true;

                  bool_t hamCycleSolver( int n, bool_t *graph, int *path, int pos )
                  int v;
                  if ( pos == n )
                  return graph[ path[pos-1]*n + path[0] ];
                  for ( v= 1; v < n; ++v )
                  if ( hamOkay( n, v, graph, path, pos ) )
                  path[pos]= v;
                  if ( hamCycleSolver( n, graph, path, pos+1 ) == true )
                  return true;
                  path[pos]= -1;

                  return false;

                  bool_t hamCycleExist( int n, bool_t *graph )
                  bool_t stat;
                  int i, *path= (int *) malloc( sizeof(int) * n );
                  if ( path == NULL ) return false;
                  for ( i= 0; i < n; ++i )
                  path[i]= -1;
                  path[0]= 0;
                  stat= hamCycleSolver( n, graph, path, 1 );
                  if ( stat == true ) hamPrint( n, path );
                  free( path );
                  return stat;

                  bool_t graph[][5]= */
                  1, 1, 0, 0, 1 , /* ;
                  int main( void )
                  if ( hamCycleExist( sizeof(graph)/sizeof(graph[0]), (bool_t *) graph ) )
                  printf( "Graph is Hamiltoniann" );
                  else
                  printf( "Graph is not Hamiltoniann" );
                  return 0;



                  Take note of the use of a connection matrix in the matrix graph. In this case, the connections must be specified in both directions. So there are "1"s specified to connect, for example, node 0 to node 1 and also node 1 to node 0. So it's easy to change this matrix to specify a path from node 0 to node 1 without specifying a path from node 1 to node 0, here. I just didn't do that, in the above case. All connections there are explicitly arranged to work in both directions.



                  If interested, you can simply multiply such a matrix by an appropriate vector to get a vector of connections for each entry in the appropriate vector, too.



                  In any case, here is a web page I readily found on google that may also help demonstrate that these ideas have been around for a long time and are in regular use:
                  Graph representations.



                  I had simply borrowed the idea, myself. I didn't invent it. So it pre-dates my use. And that means it is practically ancient. ;) I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear it dates into the 1800's.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 4 hours ago

























                  answered 5 hours ago









                  jonkjonk

                  35.3k12876




                  35.3k12876























                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      I'm no mathematician but I feel strongly this is related to the singular value decomposition (SVD) or eigendecomposition.



                      I first came across SVD in the context of modelling MIMO communication systems, particularly those using spatial multiplexing. I'll try to detail this to explain why I think it relates to your problem which I am not able to answer directly.



                      Consider a time-invariant, noiseless MIMO channel. This can be represented as.



                      $
                      mathbfy = H(omega)mathbfx
                      $



                      Where H is a matrix of transfer functions between the various parallel channels. Ideally, H would be diagonal and there would be no coupling between each channel. The presence of off-diagonal entries means that equalization will be required to prevent the channels interfering.



                      The SVD decomposes H into



                      $
                      H = ULambda V^*
                      $



                      Where $U$ and $V$ can be thought of as rotations and $Lambda $ is a diagonal matrix that simply scales each channel individually. $U$ and $V$ are both unitary matrices, so their inverses are their conjugate transposes. The columns of U and V also form orthonormal basis, so they can be thought of as the natural 'coordinate system' for solving the problem.



                      Intuitively, it takes the input channels, which are not orthogonal, and applies a transformation at the input and output that makes the behavior of the channel very simple, just attenuation (the matrix $Lambda $).



                      This has application to equalization, if we pre-multiply our input signals with $V$, pass it through the channel, and apply $U^*$ to the output. We get,



                      $
                      mathbfy = U^*ULambda V^*Vmathbfx \
                      mathbfy = Lambda mathbfx
                      $



                      Which gives us completely orthogonal channels that do not interfere. This reminds me very much of your problem, the connection matrices being the natural orthogonal basis to use, and the conductances simply scaling these.



                      The SVD also has some interesting applications in image processing



                      Edit: The decomposition in question is definitely an eigenvalue decomposition, of which the SVD can be thought of as a generalization.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$

















                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        I'm no mathematician but I feel strongly this is related to the singular value decomposition (SVD) or eigendecomposition.



                        I first came across SVD in the context of modelling MIMO communication systems, particularly those using spatial multiplexing. I'll try to detail this to explain why I think it relates to your problem which I am not able to answer directly.



                        Consider a time-invariant, noiseless MIMO channel. This can be represented as.



                        $
                        mathbfy = H(omega)mathbfx
                        $



                        Where H is a matrix of transfer functions between the various parallel channels. Ideally, H would be diagonal and there would be no coupling between each channel. The presence of off-diagonal entries means that equalization will be required to prevent the channels interfering.



                        The SVD decomposes H into



                        $
                        H = ULambda V^*
                        $



                        Where $U$ and $V$ can be thought of as rotations and $Lambda $ is a diagonal matrix that simply scales each channel individually. $U$ and $V$ are both unitary matrices, so their inverses are their conjugate transposes. The columns of U and V also form orthonormal basis, so they can be thought of as the natural 'coordinate system' for solving the problem.



                        Intuitively, it takes the input channels, which are not orthogonal, and applies a transformation at the input and output that makes the behavior of the channel very simple, just attenuation (the matrix $Lambda $).



                        This has application to equalization, if we pre-multiply our input signals with $V$, pass it through the channel, and apply $U^*$ to the output. We get,



                        $
                        mathbfy = U^*ULambda V^*Vmathbfx \
                        mathbfy = Lambda mathbfx
                        $



                        Which gives us completely orthogonal channels that do not interfere. This reminds me very much of your problem, the connection matrices being the natural orthogonal basis to use, and the conductances simply scaling these.



                        The SVD also has some interesting applications in image processing



                        Edit: The decomposition in question is definitely an eigenvalue decomposition, of which the SVD can be thought of as a generalization.






                        share|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$















                          1












                          1








                          1





                          $begingroup$

                          I'm no mathematician but I feel strongly this is related to the singular value decomposition (SVD) or eigendecomposition.



                          I first came across SVD in the context of modelling MIMO communication systems, particularly those using spatial multiplexing. I'll try to detail this to explain why I think it relates to your problem which I am not able to answer directly.



                          Consider a time-invariant, noiseless MIMO channel. This can be represented as.



                          $
                          mathbfy = H(omega)mathbfx
                          $



                          Where H is a matrix of transfer functions between the various parallel channels. Ideally, H would be diagonal and there would be no coupling between each channel. The presence of off-diagonal entries means that equalization will be required to prevent the channels interfering.



                          The SVD decomposes H into



                          $
                          H = ULambda V^*
                          $



                          Where $U$ and $V$ can be thought of as rotations and $Lambda $ is a diagonal matrix that simply scales each channel individually. $U$ and $V$ are both unitary matrices, so their inverses are their conjugate transposes. The columns of U and V also form orthonormal basis, so they can be thought of as the natural 'coordinate system' for solving the problem.



                          Intuitively, it takes the input channels, which are not orthogonal, and applies a transformation at the input and output that makes the behavior of the channel very simple, just attenuation (the matrix $Lambda $).



                          This has application to equalization, if we pre-multiply our input signals with $V$, pass it through the channel, and apply $U^*$ to the output. We get,



                          $
                          mathbfy = U^*ULambda V^*Vmathbfx \
                          mathbfy = Lambda mathbfx
                          $



                          Which gives us completely orthogonal channels that do not interfere. This reminds me very much of your problem, the connection matrices being the natural orthogonal basis to use, and the conductances simply scaling these.



                          The SVD also has some interesting applications in image processing



                          Edit: The decomposition in question is definitely an eigenvalue decomposition, of which the SVD can be thought of as a generalization.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          I'm no mathematician but I feel strongly this is related to the singular value decomposition (SVD) or eigendecomposition.



                          I first came across SVD in the context of modelling MIMO communication systems, particularly those using spatial multiplexing. I'll try to detail this to explain why I think it relates to your problem which I am not able to answer directly.



                          Consider a time-invariant, noiseless MIMO channel. This can be represented as.



                          $
                          mathbfy = H(omega)mathbfx
                          $



                          Where H is a matrix of transfer functions between the various parallel channels. Ideally, H would be diagonal and there would be no coupling between each channel. The presence of off-diagonal entries means that equalization will be required to prevent the channels interfering.



                          The SVD decomposes H into



                          $
                          H = ULambda V^*
                          $



                          Where $U$ and $V$ can be thought of as rotations and $Lambda $ is a diagonal matrix that simply scales each channel individually. $U$ and $V$ are both unitary matrices, so their inverses are their conjugate transposes. The columns of U and V also form orthonormal basis, so they can be thought of as the natural 'coordinate system' for solving the problem.



                          Intuitively, it takes the input channels, which are not orthogonal, and applies a transformation at the input and output that makes the behavior of the channel very simple, just attenuation (the matrix $Lambda $).



                          This has application to equalization, if we pre-multiply our input signals with $V$, pass it through the channel, and apply $U^*$ to the output. We get,



                          $
                          mathbfy = U^*ULambda V^*Vmathbfx \
                          mathbfy = Lambda mathbfx
                          $



                          Which gives us completely orthogonal channels that do not interfere. This reminds me very much of your problem, the connection matrices being the natural orthogonal basis to use, and the conductances simply scaling these.



                          The SVD also has some interesting applications in image processing



                          Edit: The decomposition in question is definitely an eigenvalue decomposition, of which the SVD can be thought of as a generalization.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered 3 hours ago









                          jramsay42jramsay42

                          595127




                          595127



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering 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.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f433641%2fwhere-did-this-useful-matrix-decomposition-come-from-for-nodal-analysis%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              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







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

                              Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

                              Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar