Let $A$ be a $k\times k$ positive definite symmetric matrix. By spectral decomposition, we have

$$A = \lambda_1e_1e_1'+ ... + \lambda_ke_ke_k'$$


$$A^{-1} = \sum_{i=1}^k\frac{1}{\lambda_i}e_ie_i'$$

How to understand spectral decomposition and the relationship between $A$ and $A^{-1}$ geometrically?


1 Answer 1


You are requiring that the matrix $A$ be positive definite, but need not be so to be diagonalizable. In fact over the complex numbers, we would only need $A$ to commute with its adjoint (transpose and complex conjugated of the original, $A^†$), which then $A$ is called a normal matrix, i.e. if $A\cdot A^†=A^†\cdot A$ then there is a basis of $\mathbb C^k$ formed by a complete set of linearly independent orthonormal eigenvectors $\lvert e_i\rangle$, corresponding to eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ (possibly repeated) of $A$, so that $$A=\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i\lvert e_i\rangle\langle e_i\lvert\;\; \Rightarrow\;\; A^{-1}=\sum_{i=1}^k \frac{1}{\lambda_i}\lvert e_i\rangle\langle e_i\lvert.$$ The $\lvert e_i\rangle\langle e_i\lvert$ are witten in Dirac's notation and are your $e_ie'_i$. Concretely, each $\lvert e_i\rangle\langle e_i\lvert$ is a projector onto the line spanned by $\lvert e_i\rangle$; indeed if we write the scalar product by $\langle e_i\,\lvert\,v\rangle$, each projector annihilates all the components of $\lvert v\rangle$ except $v_i\lvert e_i\rangle$ because of orthonormality of $\{\lvert e_j\rangle\}_{j=1}^k$, so $\lvert e_i\rangle\langle e_i\lvert$ gives the length of the projection of the segment $\lvert v\rangle$ projected onto the line spanned by the unitary eigenvector $\lvert e_i\rangle$. This is the "spectral decomposition" of $A$ and gives the action of the matrix $A$ in terms of a linear superposition of projectors. In fact, since the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ may appear more than once (because of multiplicity $n_i$), you can collect the elementary $n_i$ projectors $\{\lvert e_j\rangle\langle e_j\lvert\}_{j=i}^{i+n_i}$ with common eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ into one projector $P_i:=\sum_{j=i}^{i+n_i}\lvert e_j\rangle\langle e_j\lvert$, so that your matrix just expands into the different $m\leq k$ eigenvalues: $$A=\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i P_i\;\; \Rightarrow\;\; A^{-1}=\sum_{i=1}^m \frac{1}{\lambda_i}P_i.$$

Thus, to interpret geometrically what $A, A^{-1}$ do, we have just to understand the action of the projectors $P_i$. This is straightforward: $P_i$ is a linear combination of elementary projectors of any vector onto the lines spanned by $\lvert e_j\rangle$, for $j=i,\dots,i+n_i$, so $P_i\lvert v\rangle$ projects $\lvert v\rangle$ onto the linear subspace (e.g. line, plane, hyperplane...) spanned by those eigenvectors, thus $P_i\lvert v\rangle$ is the vectorial component of $\lvert v\rangle$ in that subspace. That is to say $\lvert v\rangle=\sum_i P_i\lvert v\rangle$.

Therefore we can interpret geometrically the spectral decomposition of $A$ like this: if $A$ is a normal $k\times k$ matrix acting on a vector of $\mathbb C^k$, it corresponds to a linear map, endomorphism of $\mathbb C^k$, which takes vectors and linearly gives new vectors; its action on a vector $\lvert v\rangle$ can be seen as a composition of actions for each component of the vector on each of the $m$ eigenspaces of $A$, which are linear subspaces of $\mathbb C^k$ of dimension $n_i$ corresponding to each of the possible eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ of $A$. The eigenspaces are invariant subspaces because $A$ transforms vectors in them to new vectors in them, without mixing eigenspaces (e.g. taking vectors of an eigenplane into the same plane). Hence, $\lambda_i P_i\lvert v\rangle$ takes the vectorial component of $\lvert v\rangle$ in the eigenspace spanned by the eigenvectors corresopnding to the eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ and scales that component by $\lambda_i$, i.e. just makes that component equal, bigger or smaller according to $|\lambda_i|\geq 1$ or $|\lambda_i|< 1$ (and change the orientation of that component if $\lambda_i <0$). Thus the action of $A$ on $\lvert v\rangle$ stretches its components on each of the eigenspaces by a factor $\lambda_i$, giving at the end a new vector with those new components. The action of $A^{-1}$ is analogue but with each of the stretching factors inverted (so what $A$ scales up, $A^{-1}$ scales down and vice-versa). For example, if $A$ is a positive definite real symmetric matrix, as you say in the question, then its eigenvalues are all positive since $\langle e_i\lvert A\lvert e_i\rangle=\lambda_i > 0$, by positivity and $\{\lvert e_i\rangle\}_{i=1}^k$ being orthonormal. Thus, in this particular case, the action of $A$ on a vector does not change the orientation of its projections onto each of the eigenspaces of $A$, it justs scales them (contrarily to the example of the picture below).

enter image description here

ADDITION: A similar geometric interpretation can be attempted for the canonical Jordan form of a matrix; in that general case, besides diagonal terms, there appear cross term projectors of type $\lambda_i\lvert e_{i+1}\rangle\langle e_i\lvert$ (or $\lvert e_{i-1}\rangle\langle e_i\lvert$ depending on the order of vectors in the generalized eigenbasis) in the decomposition of $A$. Therefore, along with scaling of the component in the direction of the generalized eigenvector, there is also a correction of direction by that component but in the direction of the previous (or next) generalized eigenvector of the basis. For all finite dimensional vector spaces over a field, the matrices or linear maps having all their eigenvectors over that field (i.e. their characteristic polynomial splits into linear factors over it), always have a Jordan canonical form; thus, in those cases (e.g. always over the complex numbers) all matrices/linear maps can be understood geometrically by their actions on vectors, as a composition of scalings and displacements of their projections over each generalized eigensubspace. In this case the inverse of a matrix in Jordan form is not as simple, and so its geometric interpretations not so easily related.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ This answer shows great insight and a lot of effort into teaching. It should get lots of up-votes! $\endgroup$
    – Mike D.
    Nov 29, 2012 at 11:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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