At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions.

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions

@TuringTest pic to follow.

which problem are you doing?

all of them in exercise 6?

I assume you know to subtract lambda from the diagonals, then find the determinant of that matrix?

I'm doing 6E

I got [7*lambda-8+(lambda-5)*(lambda(lambda)-1)]

as shown in my pic

I don't think you simplified correctly...

Idk check my pic, that's what maple gave me anyways....

[(lambda-5)*(lambda-1)(lambda)+7*(0*0)-(-1)*(-1)]+[(lambda-1)*7+(lambda-5)*0-(0*(-1))*lambda]

I have always done det(A - lambda*I)=0

That's what the book shows us.

It comes from
\[ Ax =\lambda x\] or
\[ Ax -\lambda x=0\]
\[ (A -\lambda I) x=0\]

Yeah the book says that, then goes into normal determinants.e

Why is it only [7(λ−1)(−1)]?

the other parts have 0's so we can ignore them

and why do you only do it twice? I'm so confused. I thought the diagonal rule is 3 diags - 3 diags.

oic yeah.

deerrp :P

I don't like Maple's answer >( Wolfram doesn't either :P.

I use co-factors
(L-5) * det (lower right 2x2)
ignore the 0
-1 * det(lower left 2x2)

I hate co factors... From TT's example I get
[-7*lambda(-1)+1+(lambda(lambda-1))(lambda)] = 0

I just took what you did and entered it into Maple :P.

oh I think I know what Id id :P.

I frogot to add some extra brackets :). Does this shizzle look better >(

Same thing it looks like >(

TT never messes up :)

Normally maple gives me the good answer, but nope it's stupid :P.

yay :D
always trust your brain first is the moral, I'd say
Ok, dinner time, see ya!

NOOOOOOOOO!! 1 more quesitn plz.

Thanks, diff Q on the eigenvalues though :)

COME BACK SOON SO I CAN ASK MOAR Q'S!