Talk:M-matrix

M-matrices and Minkowski

Does anyone have a reference for M-matrices being named in honour of Minkowski? I can't find out anything about it. Unless a reference can be produced, that sentence should be removed. Geekdog 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any definitive proof of the matter - but take a look at this http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&q=Minkowski+m-matrix&meta= .

I think it looks highly unlikely to be wrong, so I'm happy to see it remain for now at least. Dan Pope 05:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across a reference for this today, which has been added to the article. Geekdog 11:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to scattering matrices

should this article link to the one on scattering matrices, as the two are interrelated for solving problems in quantum mechanics?Brokencalculator (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M-matrix examples

Fixed the characterization. A counter-example to the previous one is [[1 -1 0] [-1 1 0] [0 0 1]] that has eigenvalues 0, 1 and 2. The current one can be proved via Gershgorin theorem. -189.62.163.14 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diagonal dominance

The current article says: "Perhaps it should be mentioned: if a matrix is strictly diagonally dominant, and if the off-diagonal entries are negative or zero, then the matrix is an "M"-matrix". Isn't it also needed that (1) the matrix is real and (2) the diagonal entries are positive? A counterexample for (2) is the 2x2 matrix with the diagonal entries -1 and the off-diagonal entries -0.5. I'm unlikely to remember to check this talk page again so if you agree please make the fix. 24.45.238.8 (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effective potential

[1] I don't understand this well enough to tell whether it is relevant to this article. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]