# Tag Info

3

Note that any eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $A$ satisfies $Av = \lambda v \tag{1}$ for some vector $v \ne 0$, so that $A^2 v = A(Av) = A(\lambda v) = \lambda(Av) = \lambda(\lambda v) = \lambda^2 v, \tag{2}$ whence $0 = (A^2 + I)v = A^2v + v = (\lambda ^2 + 1)v, \tag{3}$ and since $v \ne 0$ this implies $\lambda^2 + 1 = 0; \tag{4}$ but equation (4) has no ...

2

The equations can be written as $\dot{p} = Ap$, with $p \in \mathbb{R}^3$ and $A = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$. Note that $A= v v^T -I$, where $v=(1,1,1)^T$, so it has one eigenvalue at 2 corresponding to the eigenvector $v$, and two at -1 corresponding to the eigenspace $\{v\}^\bot$. (Note that ...

2

Your differential equation is of the form $\vec u'=A\vec u$, where $\vec u=\begin{bmatrix} x\\ y\\ z\end{bmatrix}$ and $A=\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 & 1\\ 1& 0 & 1\\ 1 & 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}$. If there is a choice of eigenvectors of $A$ that form a basis of $\mathbb R^{3\color{grey}{\times 1}}$, then, assuming the eigenvectors are $v_1, ... 2 The reason why eigenvalues are so important in mathematics are too many. Here is a very short and extremely incomplete list of the main applications I encountered in my path and that are coming now in mind to me: Theoretical applications: The eigenvalues of the Jacobian of a vector field at a given point determines the local geometry of the flow and the ... 2 What we really want is to find a basis of the kernel of the transformation, that is, find a basis for the subspace of$\vec x = \pmatrix{x_1 & x_2 & x_3}^T$such that $$A\;\vec x = \pmatrix{x_1 + 2x_2 + 3x_3\\0\\0} = \pmatrix{0\\0\\0}$$ Here's one way to do this: set$x_2 = 0$, this reduces to $$x_1 +2(0) + 3 x_3 = 0 \implies \vec x = ... 2 Well, the proof doesn't claim that v is an eigenvector, so there's no problem if it isn't. The vectors (v,Tv,\dots,T^nv) are linearly dependent regardless of the values of v and T. It doesn't matter whether v is nonzero. It doesn't matter whether T^i is nonzero. It doesn't even matter that T is a linear operator. Any set of n+1 vectors is ... 2 Counterexample:$$ A = \pmatrix{ 1&0&0\\ 0&0&0\\ 0&0&0 },\; B= \pmatrix{ 0&0&0\\ 0&-1/2&1/2\\ 0&1/2&-1/2 } $$As for your newest question, note that Laplacian matrices are always positive semidefinite (i.e. have only non-negative eigenvalues). Since the sum of two positive semidefinite matrices is itself ... 2 Let a = x^\dagger Ax, b = y^\dagger Ay, and c = x^\dagger Ay. The eigenvalues of B are determined by$$\lambda_\pm =\frac{a+b\pm\sqrt{(a-b)^2+4\vert c\vert ^2}}{2}.$$Since 0\leq a,b\leq 1 by assumption, then having 0\leq \lambda_{\pm}\leq1 is equivalent to$$(a+b)^2\geq (a-b)^2+4\vert c\vert^2\qquad (1)$$and$$ \left(2-a-b\right)^2\geq ... 2 Every linear combination of$EV_{1}=\pmatrix{1\\0\\0}$and$EV_3=\pmatrix{0\\1\\0}$is a eigenvector with eigenvalue$1$.$EV_{1,3} = span\{\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array} \right), \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{array} \right), \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{array} \right)\}$is the same as$EV_{1,3} = span\{\left( ...

1

Update: I have undeleted my answer because I think it is fixed now. You got $$V_{\lambda_2} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 \\ 1 \\ 1 \end{array} \right)$$ correct but then copied it down wrongly.(I think..) Then you correctly wrote down the case $\lambda_1$. From $$\left(\begin{array}{ccc } 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 ... 1 Pretty sure you are wrong. My counterexample:$$B=\begin{bmatrix}0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & -1 & 1 & 0\\ 0&0&-1&1\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix} \\A=\begin{bmatrix}1&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\end{bmatrix}$$1 I think we can use the following inequality due to Weyl. Let A and B be Hermitian matrices with eigenvalues \lambda_i and \mu_i, respectively (indexed in descending order so that \lambda_1 and \mu_1 are the top eigenvalues). Let \nu_i denote the eigenvalues of A+B, indexed in the same way. Then:$$\nu_{i+j+1} \leq \lambda_{i+1} + ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible