How did Gauss discover the prime number theorem?












4












$begingroup$


Carl Friedrich Gauss conjectured in his early youth that



$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log(x)} = 1.$$



Any idea how did he reach such result?






prime-numbers math-history







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
    $endgroup$
    – barak manos
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    ...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
    $endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:28










  • $begingroup$
    Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
    $endgroup$
    – user2345215
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:29








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
    $endgroup$
    – quid♦
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:31


















4












$begingroup$


Carl Friedrich Gauss conjectured in his early youth that



$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log(x)} = 1.$$



Any idea how did he reach such result?






prime-numbers math-history







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
    $endgroup$
    – barak manos
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    ...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
    $endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:28










  • $begingroup$
    Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
    $endgroup$
    – user2345215
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:29








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
    $endgroup$
    – quid♦
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:31
















4












4








4


3



$begingroup$


Carl Friedrich Gauss conjectured in his early youth that



$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log(x)} = 1.$$



Any idea how did he reach such result?






prime-numbers math-history







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Carl Friedrich Gauss conjectured in his early youth that



$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log(x)} = 1.$$



Any idea how did he reach such result?






prime-numbers math-history




prime-numbers math-history






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 20 '15 at 19:23









imouradimourad

978




978












  • $begingroup$
    Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
    $endgroup$
    – barak manos
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    ...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
    $endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:28










  • $begingroup$
    Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
    $endgroup$
    – user2345215
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:29








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
    $endgroup$
    – quid♦
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:31




















  • $begingroup$
    Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
    $endgroup$
    – barak manos
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    ...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
    $endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:28










  • $begingroup$
    Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
    $endgroup$
    – user2345215
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:29








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
    $endgroup$
    – quid♦
    Jan 20 '15 at 19:31


















$begingroup$
Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
$endgroup$
– barak manos
Jan 20 '15 at 19:24






$begingroup$
Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
$endgroup$
– barak manos
Jan 20 '15 at 19:24






1




1




$begingroup$
...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jan 20 '15 at 19:26




$begingroup$
...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jan 20 '15 at 19:26




2




2




$begingroup$
what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 20 '15 at 19:28




$begingroup$
what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 20 '15 at 19:28












$begingroup$
Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
$endgroup$
– user2345215
Jan 20 '15 at 19:29






$begingroup$
Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
$endgroup$
– user2345215
Jan 20 '15 at 19:29






1




1




$begingroup$
Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
$endgroup$
– quid♦
Jan 20 '15 at 19:31






$begingroup$
Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
$endgroup$
– quid♦
Jan 20 '15 at 19:31












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















8












$begingroup$

It is not quite accurate to say that Gauss discovered the prime number theorem. He made tables of the quantity



$$int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}$$



which are reprinted in Harold Edwards' book Riemann's Zeta Function. According to Edwards citing Gauss's Werke, Vol. II Gauss claims (in an 1849 letter) to have conjectured that the density of primes was $1/log x$ around 1792 or 1793.



According to Edwards, Gauss presented no analytic basis for the conjecture but gave empirical data in the form of tables suggesting the relation.



According to the Wiki entry on the PNT Legendre in 1797 or 1798 conjectured a relation of the form $a/(Aln a + B)$ which he later sharpened. Chebyshev subsequently showed something akin to the prime number theorem but shy of it:
that if



$$ lim_{xtoinfty}frac{pi(x)}{int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}}$$ exists the limit is 1.



Edwards and one of his sources say that the relation given by Legendre had been around for some time. Since Gauss didn't publish it the original source of the general idea is arguably obscure.



By the time the prime number theorem was finally proven in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin (separately) is was much more than a guess and not quite a theorem.



Gauss deserves credit for the numerical observation and for the unpublished conjecture because his credibility in matters of priority is high (which Edwards and others discuss). Properly speaking we can give him credit for the prime number conjecture.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for such detailed informations.
    $endgroup$
    – imourad
    Jan 21 '15 at 13:14










  • $begingroup$
    What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
    $endgroup$
    – Billy Rubina
    Dec 16 '18 at 1:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – daniel
    Dec 16 '18 at 7:37











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1112485%2fhow-did-gauss-discover-the-prime-number-theorem%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









8












$begingroup$

It is not quite accurate to say that Gauss discovered the prime number theorem. He made tables of the quantity



$$int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}$$



which are reprinted in Harold Edwards' book Riemann's Zeta Function. According to Edwards citing Gauss's Werke, Vol. II Gauss claims (in an 1849 letter) to have conjectured that the density of primes was $1/log x$ around 1792 or 1793.



According to Edwards, Gauss presented no analytic basis for the conjecture but gave empirical data in the form of tables suggesting the relation.



According to the Wiki entry on the PNT Legendre in 1797 or 1798 conjectured a relation of the form $a/(Aln a + B)$ which he later sharpened. Chebyshev subsequently showed something akin to the prime number theorem but shy of it:
that if



$$ lim_{xtoinfty}frac{pi(x)}{int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}}$$ exists the limit is 1.



Edwards and one of his sources say that the relation given by Legendre had been around for some time. Since Gauss didn't publish it the original source of the general idea is arguably obscure.



By the time the prime number theorem was finally proven in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin (separately) is was much more than a guess and not quite a theorem.



Gauss deserves credit for the numerical observation and for the unpublished conjecture because his credibility in matters of priority is high (which Edwards and others discuss). Properly speaking we can give him credit for the prime number conjecture.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for such detailed informations.
    $endgroup$
    – imourad
    Jan 21 '15 at 13:14










  • $begingroup$
    What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
    $endgroup$
    – Billy Rubina
    Dec 16 '18 at 1:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – daniel
    Dec 16 '18 at 7:37
















8












$begingroup$

It is not quite accurate to say that Gauss discovered the prime number theorem. He made tables of the quantity



$$int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}$$



which are reprinted in Harold Edwards' book Riemann's Zeta Function. According to Edwards citing Gauss's Werke, Vol. II Gauss claims (in an 1849 letter) to have conjectured that the density of primes was $1/log x$ around 1792 or 1793.



According to Edwards, Gauss presented no analytic basis for the conjecture but gave empirical data in the form of tables suggesting the relation.



According to the Wiki entry on the PNT Legendre in 1797 or 1798 conjectured a relation of the form $a/(Aln a + B)$ which he later sharpened. Chebyshev subsequently showed something akin to the prime number theorem but shy of it:
that if



$$ lim_{xtoinfty}frac{pi(x)}{int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}}$$ exists the limit is 1.



Edwards and one of his sources say that the relation given by Legendre had been around for some time. Since Gauss didn't publish it the original source of the general idea is arguably obscure.



By the time the prime number theorem was finally proven in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin (separately) is was much more than a guess and not quite a theorem.



Gauss deserves credit for the numerical observation and for the unpublished conjecture because his credibility in matters of priority is high (which Edwards and others discuss). Properly speaking we can give him credit for the prime number conjecture.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for such detailed informations.
    $endgroup$
    – imourad
    Jan 21 '15 at 13:14










  • $begingroup$
    What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
    $endgroup$
    – Billy Rubina
    Dec 16 '18 at 1:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – daniel
    Dec 16 '18 at 7:37














8












8








8





$begingroup$

It is not quite accurate to say that Gauss discovered the prime number theorem. He made tables of the quantity



$$int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}$$



which are reprinted in Harold Edwards' book Riemann's Zeta Function. According to Edwards citing Gauss's Werke, Vol. II Gauss claims (in an 1849 letter) to have conjectured that the density of primes was $1/log x$ around 1792 or 1793.



According to Edwards, Gauss presented no analytic basis for the conjecture but gave empirical data in the form of tables suggesting the relation.



According to the Wiki entry on the PNT Legendre in 1797 or 1798 conjectured a relation of the form $a/(Aln a + B)$ which he later sharpened. Chebyshev subsequently showed something akin to the prime number theorem but shy of it:
that if



$$ lim_{xtoinfty}frac{pi(x)}{int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}}$$ exists the limit is 1.



Edwards and one of his sources say that the relation given by Legendre had been around for some time. Since Gauss didn't publish it the original source of the general idea is arguably obscure.



By the time the prime number theorem was finally proven in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin (separately) is was much more than a guess and not quite a theorem.



Gauss deserves credit for the numerical observation and for the unpublished conjecture because his credibility in matters of priority is high (which Edwards and others discuss). Properly speaking we can give him credit for the prime number conjecture.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



It is not quite accurate to say that Gauss discovered the prime number theorem. He made tables of the quantity



$$int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}$$



which are reprinted in Harold Edwards' book Riemann's Zeta Function. According to Edwards citing Gauss's Werke, Vol. II Gauss claims (in an 1849 letter) to have conjectured that the density of primes was $1/log x$ around 1792 or 1793.



According to Edwards, Gauss presented no analytic basis for the conjecture but gave empirical data in the form of tables suggesting the relation.



According to the Wiki entry on the PNT Legendre in 1797 or 1798 conjectured a relation of the form $a/(Aln a + B)$ which he later sharpened. Chebyshev subsequently showed something akin to the prime number theorem but shy of it:
that if



$$ lim_{xtoinfty}frac{pi(x)}{int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}}$$ exists the limit is 1.



Edwards and one of his sources say that the relation given by Legendre had been around for some time. Since Gauss didn't publish it the original source of the general idea is arguably obscure.



By the time the prime number theorem was finally proven in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin (separately) is was much more than a guess and not quite a theorem.



Gauss deserves credit for the numerical observation and for the unpublished conjecture because his credibility in matters of priority is high (which Edwards and others discuss). Properly speaking we can give him credit for the prime number conjecture.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 21 '15 at 14:55

























answered Jan 20 '15 at 23:03









danieldaniel

6,25222258




6,25222258












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for such detailed informations.
    $endgroup$
    – imourad
    Jan 21 '15 at 13:14










  • $begingroup$
    What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
    $endgroup$
    – Billy Rubina
    Dec 16 '18 at 1:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – daniel
    Dec 16 '18 at 7:37


















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for such detailed informations.
    $endgroup$
    – imourad
    Jan 21 '15 at 13:14










  • $begingroup$
    What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
    $endgroup$
    – Billy Rubina
    Dec 16 '18 at 1:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – daniel
    Dec 16 '18 at 7:37
















$begingroup$
Thanks for such detailed informations.
$endgroup$
– imourad
Jan 21 '15 at 13:14




$begingroup$
Thanks for such detailed informations.
$endgroup$
– imourad
Jan 21 '15 at 13:14












$begingroup$
What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
$endgroup$
– Billy Rubina
Dec 16 '18 at 1:50




$begingroup$
What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
$endgroup$
– Billy Rubina
Dec 16 '18 at 1:50




1




1




$begingroup$
@BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
$endgroup$
– daniel
Dec 16 '18 at 7:37




$begingroup$
@BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
$endgroup$
– daniel
Dec 16 '18 at 7:37


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1112485%2fhow-did-gauss-discover-the-prime-number-theorem%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

Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

Image
0 0 $begingroup$ Need help with this problem. Suppose our lazy professor collects a quiz and a homework assignment from a class of n students one day, then distributes both the quizzes and the homework assignments back to the class in a random fashion for grading. Each student receives one quiz and one homework assignment to grade. (a) What is the probability that every student receives someone else's quiz to grade, and someone else's homework to grade? (b) What is the probability that no student receives both their own quiz and their own homework assignment to grade? In this case, some students may receive their own quiz, and others may receive their own homework assignment. (c) Compute the limiting probability as n approaches infinity in each case. ...
Read more

Aardman Animations

Image
Aardman Animations, Ltd. Aardman Animations Tipo privada Atividade Animação em stop-motion , Animação em CGI Fundação 1972 Fundador(es) Peter Lord David Sproxton Sede Bristol, Inglaterra  Reino Unido Proprietário(s) Dreamworks Pessoas-chave Peter Lord David Sproxton Nick Park Divisões Aardman Features Aardman Digital Aardman Commercials Aardman Broadcast Aardman International Aardman Rights Aardman Effects Aardman 3-D Systems Aardman Nathan Love AardBoiled Website oficial aardman.com ...
Read more

Are they similar matrix

Image
0 $begingroup$ Do $begin{bmatrix} 0&i&0\0&0&1\0&0&0 end{bmatrix} $ and $begin{bmatrix} 0&0&0\-i&0&0\0&1&0 end{bmatrix} $ are similar.Is this True/false Clearly both are nilpotent and one is conjucate transpose of other but how to know if they are similar.i'm stuck. Please help me linear-algebra vector-spaces eigenvalues-eigenvectors generalizedeigenvector share | cite | improve this question edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:38 Vasanth Kris asked Dec 10 '18 at 6:19 ...
Read more