Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

How can I prove that if I have $n$ eigenvectors from different eigenvalues, they are all linearly independent?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 13 down vote accepted

I'll do it with two vectors. I'll leave it to you do it in general.

Suppose $\mathbf{v}_1$ and $\mathbf{v}_2$ correspond to distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, respectively.

Take a linear combination that is equal to $0$, $\alpha_1\mathbf{v}_1+\alpha_2\mathbf{v}_2 = \mathbf{0}$. We need to show that $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$.

Applying $T$ to both sides, we get $$\mathbf{0} = T(\mathbf{0}) = T(\alpha_1\mathbf{v}_1+\alpha_2\mathbf{v}_2) = \alpha_1\lambda_1\mathbf{v}_1 + \alpha_2\lambda_2\mathbf{v}_2.$$ Now, instead, multiply the original equation by $\lambda_1$: $$\mathbf{0} = \lambda_1\alpha_1\mathbf{v}_1 + \lambda_2\alpha_2\mathbf{v}_2.$$ Now take $$\begin{align*} \mathbf{0} &= \alpha_1\lambda_1\mathbf{v}_1 + \alpha_2\lambda_2\mathbf{v}_2\\ \mathbf{0} &= \alpha_1\lambda_1\mathbf{v}_1 + \alpha_2\lambda_1\mathbf{v}_2 \end{align*}$$ and taking the difference, we get: $$\mathbf{0} = 0\mathbf{v}_1 + \alpha_2(\lambda_2-\lambda_1)\mathbf{v}_2 = \alpha_2(\lambda_2-\lambda_1)\mathbf{v}_2.$$

Since $\lambda_2-\lambda_1\neq 0$, and since $\mathbf{v}_2\neq\mathbf{0}$ (because $\mathbf{v}_2$ is an eigenvector), then $\alpha_2=0$. Using this on the original linear combination $\mathbf{0} = \alpha_1\mathbf{v}_1 + \alpha_2\mathbf{v}_2$, we conclude that $\alpha_1=0$ as well (since $\mathbf{v}_1\neq\mathbf{0}$).

So $\mathbf{v}_1$ and $\mathbf{v}_2$ are linearly independent.

Now try using induction on $n$ for the general case.

share|improve this answer
    
I believe that you wrote $\lambda_2$ instead of $\lambda_1$ in the row before "Now take" –  jacob Mar 14 at 8:08

Alternative:

Let $j$ be the maximal $j$ such that $v_1,\dots,v_j$ are independent. Then there exists $c_i$, $1\leq i\leq j$ so that $\sum_{i=1}^j c_iv_i=v_{j+1}$. But by applying $T$ we also have that

$$\sum_{i=1}^j c_i\lambda_iv_i=\lambda_{j+1}v_{j+1}.$$ Hence $$\sum_{i=1}^j \left(\lambda_i-\lambda_{j+1}\right) c_iv_i=0$$ which is a contradiction since $\lambda_i\neq \lambda_{j+1}$ for $1\leq i\leq j$.

Hope that helps,

share|improve this answer
1  
P.S. The argument uses the well-ordering principle on the naturals (by looking at the least $j$ such that $v_1,\ldots,v_{j+1}$ is dependent). Well-ordering for the naturals is equivalent to induction. –  Arturo Magidin Mar 28 '11 at 1:20
    
@Arturo: Thanks! Should be fixed now. (Didn't realize I was using well ordering in that way) –  Eric Naslund Mar 28 '11 at 1:30
    
No problem; I'll delete the other two comments since it's been fixed. In any case, many people prefer arguments along these lines to an explicit induction, even if they are logically equivalent (you can think of the argument you give as a proof by contradiction of the inductive step, with the base being taken for granted [or as trivial, since $v_1$ is nonzero]; cast that way, it may be clearer why the two arguments are closely connected). –  Arturo Magidin Mar 28 '11 at 1:34
1  
@Eric Naslund This proofs seems very similar to the one given in Axler... –  user38268 Aug 31 '11 at 7:29
    
@D B Lim: What is Axler? –  Eric Naslund Aug 31 '11 at 14:42

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.