Eigenvalues
By Hal 2001 on Sunday, December 30, 2001 -
11:08 pm:
Let A be a square matrix such that for some positive integer
m, Am = 0. Show that every eigenvalue of A is
zero.
Let A be a real 2 x 2 matrix which has non-zero non-real
eigenvalues. Show that the non-diagonal elements of A are
non-zero, but that the diagonal elements may be zero.
Thanks for your help in advance.
Hal.
By Kerwin Hui on Sunday, December 30, 2001
- 11:15 pm:
Hint: The first part - proof by
contradiction. The second part - what can you tell me about the
trace and determinant of A?
Kerwin
By Hal 2001 on Sunday, December 30, 2001 -
11:57 pm:
Hi Kerwin,
Another question,
Suppose that
is an
square matrix such that
exists,
and let
be an eigenvalue of
. Show that
, and that
is an eigenvalue of
.
What do I do next?
Thanks.
Hal.
By Kerwin Hui on Monday, December 31,
2001 - 09:20 am:
Hal,
(a) Apply
times and remember
(b) You should get the condition
. Now LHS
.
(c) You have done most of the work. Now to see
, just
choose an arbitrary multiple of our eigenvector and get a contradiction for
. To see
is an eval of
, divide both sides
by
.
Kerwin
P.S. They look suspiciously like example sheet questions...
By Hal 2001 on Monday, December 31, 2001 -
10:34 am:
Hi Kerwin,
Yes, they are from example sheet A&G No.6 I was going through
the questions again to make sure I understood the math. I am
thankful for your help.
I think I understand (b). Since (a-d)2 > 0. But if
a and d are equal then condition that (a-d)2 > = 0
exists - but does that contradict that eigenvalues are non-real?.
How do we justify statement 'but that the diagonal elements may
be zero'. Does that mean than both a, d could be zero or only one
of them?
a)
If you have
,
If
this implies that
.
Does this make sense? And
would be meaningless, right?
(c)
I understand that the eval for
. But did not fully follow why
.
To clarify, what is our evector here?
Thanks.
Hal.
By Kerwin Hui on Monday, December 31,
2001 - 10:47 am:
Hal,
(a)
.
But
, so
for all
.
Suppose
, we have a non-zero eigenvector
, and so RHS
,
but LHS
. Contradiction.
(b) What you get is the condition
, so
,
are non-zero.
and
can both be zero, e.g. the matrix with
,
,
has
evals
.
(c)Suppose
has evect
with eval
, then for any
,
we have
, i.e.
is in the kernel of
.
However, the kernel must be trivial (Hit with
to see why).
Kerwin
By Hal 2001 on Monday, December 31, 2001 -
11:01 am:
Thanks for your help Kerwin.
Have a nice new year.
Hal.