1

I want to create a simple matrix and the code is given below, but I got error when I compile it. Could anyone help with this?

$$e^{-{\cal L}=
\left[ 
\begin{array}{cccccc}
1 & 0 & . & . & . & 0 \\
0 & 0 & . & . & . & 0 \\
0 & 0 & . & . & . & 0 \\
0 & 0 & . & . & . & 0 \\
0 & 0 & . & . & . & 0 \\
0 & 0 & . & . & . & 0 \\    
\end{array}  
\right]$$
barbara beeton
  • 88,848
user2647095
  • 43
  • 4
    you are missing a right brace in e^{-{\cal L} – Steven B. Segletes Nov 17 '13 at 01:16
  • 1
    If you use a bmatrix you won't have to specify the delimiters and the centering. And you can use \cdots instead of multiple columns. Also see http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/503/why-is-preferable-to – Ethan Bolker Nov 17 '13 at 01:26
  • The problem with forgetting braces would be easier to solve if \mathcal{L} is used instead of {\cal L} which has been obsolete for twenty years. – egreg Nov 17 '13 at 10:02
  • Your equation is mathematically impossible because this matrix has determinant zero, and e^{-L} has matrix inverse e^{+L} (or \det e^{-L}=\exp(-trace of L)\neq 0). –  Nov 17 '13 at 21:41

1 Answers1

9

Or you might need something like below.

\documentclass[preview,border=12pt,varwidth]{standalone}% change it back to your own document class
\usepackage{amsmath}

\begin{document}
\abovedisplayskip=0pt\relax% don't use this line in  your production
\[
e^{-\mathcal{L} }
=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\[-1ex]
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\]
\end{document}

enter image description here

barbara beeton
  • 88,848
kiss my armpit
  • 36,086
  • Can you please change it into e^{-\mathcal{L}}? – egreg Nov 17 '13 at 10:02
  • you might also want to insert a small negative vertical space just before the line with all the dots so that the gaps are symmetcical. \\[-.5ex] might do it. don't leave a space after the \\ -- amsmath cleverly notices a space there and assumes the bracket does not mean a spacing adjustment. – barbara beeton Nov 17 '13 at 14:20
  • @barbarabeeton: \\[-1ex] rather than \\[-.5ex] will do better but it is still not the exactest value I think. – kiss my armpit Nov 17 '13 at 16:54
  • I wonder if the OP in fact wanted 1's on the diagonal, because as it stands this matrix equation has no solution in L. –  Nov 17 '13 at 21:42