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.

So. Let us label right-eigenvectors of $M$ as $|\lambda\rangle$ and left-eigenvectors of $M$ as $\langle\lambda|$. That is, \begin{gather} M |\lambda\rangle = \lambda |\lambda\rangle \text{ and } \langle\lambda| M = \langle\lambda| \lambda . \end{gather} This makes sense (I hazard) because a left-eigenvector is adjoint, which doesn't have to mean ‘conjugate transpose’, to a right-eigenvector via a shared eigenvalue. Now, we may write \begin{gather} M|\lambda\rangle = \lambda |\lambda\rangle \text{ and } \langle\mu| M = \langle\mu| \mu , \end{gather} which implies that both \begin{gather} \langle \mu | M | \lambda \rangle = \lambda \langle \mu | \lambda \rangle \text{ and } \langle \mu | M | \lambda \rangle = \mu \langle \mu | \lambda \rangle \end{gather} which immediately implies, upon the assumption that \begin{gather} \lambda \neq \mu , \end{gather} that \begin{gather} \langle\mu|\lambda\rangle = 0 . \end{gather} What have I done wrong?

share|improve this question
    
Left and right eigenvectors are biorthogonal, that's what you showed. –  Algebraic Pavel Oct 13 '13 at 1:17

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

The answer is yes, but to a different question: Do all diagonalizable matrices have biorthogonal right and left eigenvectors?

To see this, let the matrix $A\in\mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ be diagonalizable so that there exists a nonsingular matrix $X=[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and diagonal $\Lambda=\mathrm{diag}(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n)$ such that $$A=X\Lambda X^{-1}.$$

A nonzero vector $x$ is called right eigenvector of $A$ (associated with an eigenvalue $\lambda$), if $Ax=\lambda x$ for some scalar $\lambda$. A nonzero vector $y$ is called left eigenvector (associated with an eigenvalue $\lambda$), if $y^*A=\lambda y^*$ for some scalar $\lambda$ (or equivalently, $A^*y=\bar{\lambda} y$).

The columns $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ of the matrix $X$ above are the right eigenvectors of $A$. To see this, post-multiply $A=X\Lambda X^{-1}$ by $X$ to get $AX=X\Lambda$ and look on each column of the matrix equation, which states that $Ax_i=\lambda_ix_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$.

We have also that $X^{-1}A=\Lambda X^{-1}$ (simply pre-multiplying $A=X\Lambda X^{-1}$ by $X^{-1}$), that is, $Y^*A=\Lambda Y^*$ with $Y=[y_1,\ldots,y_n]=(X^{-1})^*$. The columns $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ of $Y$ are the left eigenvectors of $A$. To see that, look on the rows of $Y^*A=\Lambda Y^*$: $y^*_iA=\lambda_i y_i^*$, $i=1,\ldots,n$.

The right eigenvectors $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^n$ and left eigenvectors $\{y_i\}_{i=1}^n$ are biorthogonal, that is, $y_i^*x_j=\delta_{ij}$, where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta symbol. This can be easily verified using the relation between $X$ and $Y$, because $y_i^*x_j=\delta_{ij}$ iff $Y^*X=I$ (where $I$ is the identity matrix) and $Y^*X=((X^{-1})^*)^*X=X^{-1}X=I$.

P.S.: Sorry for not using your notation :-)

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks! This is a great help. I had a quick question: is there an obvious way to normalise left- and right-eigenvectors separately? PS: I chose bra-ket notation because it reduced the number of symbols in the question. But I think bra-ket notation is actually what confused me! –  P. Plowman Oct 13 '13 at 21:32
    
Well, you can normalize them separately (say, to have unit norm). Then, however, you have only $y_i^*x_j=0$ if and only if $i\neq j$. Generally $y_i^*x_i$ won't be 1 but some other (nonzero) number dependent on $i$. This corresponds to replacing $X$ and $Y$ by $\tilde{X}=XD_X$ and $\tilde{Y}=YD_Y$, where $D_{\cdot}$ are nonsingular diagonal matrices. Then $\tilde{Y}^*\tilde{X}=D_YD_X$. –  Algebraic Pavel Oct 13 '13 at 21:43
    
Anyway, there's nothing wrong on your statement that right and left eigenvectors corresponding to different eigenvalues are orthogonal. The matrix even does not need to be diagonalizable. –  Algebraic Pavel Oct 13 '13 at 21:51
    
But the matrix does have to be diagonalisable if we want an eigenbasis to exist, no? –  P. Plowman Oct 14 '13 at 8:58
    
Of course, if the matrix is diagonalisable then the eigenvectors (both left and right) are basis of $\mathbb{C}^n$. That does not mean that a matrix, which is not diagonalisable, cannot have (some) left and right eigenvectors, which are still biorthogonal. –  Algebraic Pavel Oct 14 '13 at 18:15

The answer is no: define $T:R^2→R^2$ by $T(1,0)=(1,0)$, $T(1,1)=(2,2)$. Then $T$ is diagonalizable, and the eigenvalues are even distinct, but not in an orthonormal basis, ie. $T$ is not self adjoint. The problem with what you have done is that you have implicitly assumed $M$ is self adjoint, since for self adjoint operators, $⟨μ|M≡(M|μ⟩)^∗$. What does $⟨u|M$ mean if $M$ is not self adjoint?

share|improve this answer
    
$\langle u | M$ means exactly that. And $\langle u | M = \langle u | u$ means $\langle u |$ is a left-eigenvector of $M$. Can I not take a single matrix $M$ and compose left- and right-eigenvectors? Somehow I have a misunderstanding of the relation of left-eigenvectors to right-eigenvectors, which is what I would like to clarify. –  P. Plowman Oct 12 '13 at 23:25
    
$\langle u|M$ is an operator, and as usual is defined by how it operates on kets. If you already have an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors then since $\langle u|M|\lambda\rangle=\langle u|(M|\lambda\rangle)=\lambda\langle u|\lambda\rangle=0$ if $\lambda\ne u, =u$ if $\lambda=u$, you can just identify $\langle u|M$ with $u\langle u|$ but otherwise it may not make sense to make that identification. –  JLA Oct 12 '13 at 23:32
    
Okay, so I take $M$ and in the usual way diagonalise, or find a set of (right-)eigenvectors, by solving $M | \lambda \rangle = \lambda | \lambda \rangle$. Then I define the left eigenvectors as the $\langle\lambda|$ such that $\langle\lambda| M |\lambda\rangle = \lambda$. Then what goes wrong with my original question? I must apologise for the somewhat trivial question; I post because I know there is something I am very confused about. –  P. Plowman Oct 12 '13 at 23:38
    
That definition doesn't make sense though. What would $\langle\lambda|u\rangle$ be? –  JLA Oct 12 '13 at 23:41
    
Hmmm. Okay, let me think for a bit; I'll get back in a bit. Thank you very much! –  P. Plowman Oct 12 '13 at 23:43

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.