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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm reading Lawrence Perko's Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems, and he writes the following :

Theorem. If the eigenvalues $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_n$ of an $n \times n$ matrix $A$ are real and distinct, then any set of corresponding eigenvectors $\{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_n\}$ forms a basis for $\mathbb{R}^n$, the matrix $P := [v_1 \space v_2 \space \cdots \space v_n]$ is invertible and $$ P^{-1}AP = \text{diag}[\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n]. $$ This theorem says that if a linear transformation $T : \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is represented by the $n \times n$ matrix $A$ with respect to the standard basis $\{e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_n\}$ for $\mathbb{R}^n$, then with respect to any basis of eigenvectors $\{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_n\}$, $T$ is represented by the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues, $\text{diag}[\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n]$.

My question is : Would it be ok to write, more generally, that

"This theorem says that if a linear transformation $T : V \to V$, where $V$ is an n-dimensional real (or complex) vector space, is represented by the $n \times n$ matrix $A$ with respect to a given basis $C := \{c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_n\}$ for $V$, then with respect to any basis of eigenvectors $\{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_n\}$, $T$ is represented by the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues, $\text{diag}[\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n]$."

if we consider that the vectors $v \in V$ are identified to $\mathbb{R}^n$ via their components in $C$ ?

That is, is the author only giving the particular interpretation where $V = \mathbb{R}^n$ and $C$ is the standard basis for $\mathbb{R}^n$, in which case the identification to $\mathbb{R}^n$ of the vectors $v \in \mathbb{R}^n$ via their components in $C$ coincides with the vectors $v$ themselves ? Is it only a conventional interpretation ?

share|cite|improve this question
    
A general linear transformation does not necessarily have a basis of eigenvectors. The best we can do is represent $T$ in Jordan normal form (or rational canonical form). – IBWiglin Jan 29 '14 at 3:50
    
@IBWiglin Yes, but the hypothesis implies that a basis of eigenvectors exists ? – Amateur Jan 29 '14 at 4:05
    
In that case, your restatement is correct. – IBWiglin Jan 29 '14 at 4:19

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.