A community for students.

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

Empty

  • one year ago

What are the eigenvalues of this matrix?

  • This Question is Closed
  1. Empty
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 3

    \[\begin{pmatrix} 3 &1 \\ -1 &3 \end{pmatrix}\] and \[\begin{pmatrix} 3 &1 \\0 &3 \end{pmatrix}\]

  2. ParthKohli
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 4

    Cayley-Hamilton?\[|A - \lambda I |=0\]

  3. ParthKohli
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 4

    Unless I'm missing something and those parentheses mean something else.

  4. Empty
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 3

    I am sorta not interested in the answer to the first one, I'm using it to warm you up to the idea that the second supposedly defective matrix has two unique eigenvalues.

  5. ParthKohli
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 4

    Ok, so I'm getting \(\lambda = 3\) using the Cayley-Hamilton Theorem.\[\left | \begin{array}{l} { 3-\lambda }& 1 \\ 0 & 3- \lambda \end{array}\right | = (3 - \lambda)^2 =0\]

  6. ParthKohli
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 4

    I really have zero idea about linear algebra. Sorry. :(

  7. Empty
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 3

    Yeah, the first matrix has 2 complex eigenvalues and this somewhat similar one has only 1 eigenvalue? Here I claim that it actually has 2 eigenvalues after all, they're just not real nor complex, they're part of dual numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_number

  8. imqwerty
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    \[A=\left[\begin{matrix}3 & 1 \\ 0 & 3\end{matrix}\right]\] now \[determinant(A-\lambda I)=0\] so \[\left[\begin{matrix}3-\lambda & 1 \\ 0 & 3-\lambda\end{matrix}\right]=0\]\[(3-\lambda)^2=0\]so λ=3 is our eigen value Av=3v v is the eigen vector Av=3v=>(A-6I)v=0 \[\left[\begin{matrix}3-3 & 1 \\ 0 & 3-3\end{matrix}\right]\left(\begin{matrix}v_{1} \\ v_{2}\end{matrix}\right)=0\] \[0v_{1}+1v_{2}=0\]\[v_{2}=0\]and \[0v_{1}+0v_{2}=0\]so v1 can be anything.. \[v=\left(\begin{matrix}v_{1} \\ v_{2}\end{matrix}\right)\]v2=0 so v=1

  9. imqwerty
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    wait we wanted eigen value? so it wuld be 3 there ws no need of that eigen vector..

  10. imqwerty
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    but how is the second one having 2 values?

  11. ParthKohli
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 4

    Exactly, how?

  12. Empty
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 3

    The problem is that in the first matrix with complex eigenvalues we recognized that -1 has two square roots, however in the second matrix we didn't recognize that 0 has multiple roots in the dual numbers. So just like in complex numbers we have \(i^2=-1\) in the dual numbers we have \(\varepsilon^2=0\) The charcteristic equation then becomes: \[(3-\lambda)^2 = 0\] \[3-\lambda = \pm k \varepsilon\] where k is just some arbitrary real number to be determined. So we have two eigenvalues: \[\lambda_1 = 3+k\varepsilon\] \[\lambda_2 = 3-k\varepsilon\] See, and if we say wait a second what's happening here? Remember, the determinant of the matrix is the product of eigenvalues correct? \[det(A)=9 = \lambda_1 \lambda_2 = (3+k\varepsilon)(3-k\varepsilon) = 3*3+k\varepsilon 3-k\varepsilon 3-k^2\varepsilon^2 = 9\] since the middle terms cancel out by addition and the last one is 0 by multiplication. What about the trace, that should also be the sum of eigenvalues, even easier: \[tr(A) = 6 = \lambda_1+\lambda_2 = 3+k\varepsilon +3-k\varepsilon =6 \] So if you're ok with complex eigenvalues then I see no reason why you can't be ok with dual eigenvalues as well, so we don't have to call them defective matrices anymore. :P

  13. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    if this were a matrix over the ring of dual numbers, then sure, but it's not so instead we just talk about multiplicity

  14. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    we like complex eigenvalues because the problem of guaranteeing a diagonalizable matrix has n eigenvalues is equivalent to the fundamental theorem of algebra by the fact that the determinant is precisely the polynomial that encodes the eigenvalues as roots

  15. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    the dual numbers are not a field let alone are they algebraically closed, so we're not interested in using them in place of the complex numbers for studying real matrices

  16. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    and as a side note, in the dual numbers we have *three* roots of zero: $$\varepsilon^2=(-\varepsilon)^2=0^2=0$$ why should we privilege \(\pm\varepsilon\) here over \(0\)?

  17. Empty
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 3

    Yeah, there are really going to be infinitely many since any real number could by multiplying \(\varepsilon\). I think the reason to favor the + or - values is because really 0 can be seen as a special case of picking \(k\varepsilon\) and \(-k\varepsilon\) when k=0 they're I guess degenerate if that's the right word? To be fair, I don't think dual numbers are the way to go, if anything it seems to me that complex numbers and dual numbers could be brought together under one roof, \[\varepsilon = \begin{bmatrix} 0 &1 \\ 0 &0 \end{bmatrix}\] We're still able to deal with complex numbers as we have before since we can represent \(i=\varepsilon - \varepsilon'\). Or will this not work for some reason?

  18. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    well, yes, we can put them *all* under one-roof using 2x2 real matrices, since this gives includes the (i.e. up to isomorphism) the complex, dual, and split-complex numbers as subrings

  19. Empty
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 3

    @oldrin.bataku Cool, so this seems strange, or perhaps not quite right. This would seem to mean that all nxn matrices have a complete spectrum as long as you allow your numbers to also be essentially nxn matrices themselves. Where could I read more about this sort of stuff, can you give me any names of books or authors of this sort of stuff? It seems like at this point we're using matrices as entries of a matrix, which sorta makes stuff like the Cayley-Hamilton theorem maybe make more sense I'm not sure.

  20. Not the answer you are looking for?
    Search for more explanations.

    • Attachments:

Ask your own question

Sign Up
Find more explanations on OpenStudy
Privacy Policy

Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.

spraguer (Moderator)
5 → View Detailed Profile

is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...

23

  • Teamwork 19 Teammate
  • Problem Solving 19 Hero
  • You have blocked this person.
  • ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...

Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.