For every matrix $A$ we have $$AV=V\Lambda\rightarrow A=V\Lambda V^{-1}$$ where $V$ is the matrix of eigenvectors and $\Lambda$ is the diagonal matrix including eigenvalues.

When we have a symmetric matrix, one can write $$A^T=({V^{-1}})^T\Lambda V^T\rightarrow A=({V^{-1}})^T\Lambda V^T$$ where symmetry of $A$ results in $A^T=A$, and $\Lambda^T=\Lambda$ because it is diagonal.

Comparing these two yields $$V^{-1}=V^T\rightarrow V^TV=I$$ which is the definition of the orthogonal matrix. That means not only eigenvectors of a symmetric matrix are orthogonal but also they are orthonormal, i.e., they are unit vector with length 1 and orthogonal. Is this correct for all symmetric matrices?

  • $\begingroup$ If you have an orthogonal basis of eigenvectors, you can always turn it into an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors $\endgroup$ – B. Mehta May 9 '18 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ You made a huge jump when you “compare the two”. How did you arrive at $V^{-1} = V^T$? $\endgroup$ – James Yang May 9 '18 at 14:53

Comparing these two yields $$V^{-1}=V^T\rightarrow V^TV=I$$ which is the definition of the orthogonal matrix.

That step is wrong. I mean, it's not a bad guess to make. But suppose for a moment that you've found a $V$ such that $V^T = V^{-1}$.

Now write $W = 2V$. Then we'll have $$ A = W \Lambda W^{-1} $$ because the factors of $2$ and $\frac{1}{2}$ will cancel.

But we'll also have $$ A = (W^T)^{-1} \Lambda W^T $$ by the reasoning you presented. If the quoted remark above were valid, you would conclude that $W$ was ALSO orthonormal, which is impossible, because it's twice an orthonormal matrix.


It's true, however, that by taking the matrix $V$ of eigenvectors, you can produce an orthonormal matrix of eigenvectors: you just divide each column by its norm.

So your conclusion, that a symmetric matrix can be written as $U^t \Lambda U$, where $U$'s columns are an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors, is correct, but your method of reaching that conclusion was flawed.

  • $\begingroup$ I like you counter example. $\endgroup$ – Saeed May 9 '18 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ @ John Is the only way to change orthogonal basis is to normalize the vectors of $A$ to get orthonormal basis? $\endgroup$ – Saeed Sep 26 '18 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ You can start with any basis for your space and apply the Gram-Schmidt process to get a sequence of orthonormal vectors, which can then be used as the columns of an orthogonal matrix. The basis you start with need not have anything to do with $A$. Of course, when you do so, the resulting orthogonal matrix will be of no use in diagonalizing $A$ in general. $\endgroup$ – John Hughes Sep 26 '18 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ Suppose we have such an orthogonal eigendecomposition $A=U^t\Lambda U$, and then normalise $U$, calling it $\overline{U}$. How can I see that $A=\overline{U}^t\Lambda \overline{U}$ again? It feels counter-intuitive that the transpose should act to cancel out the length factors, rather I feel like they would create a new matrix $\overline{A}$.. I apologise if this is confused $\endgroup$ – plebmatician Mar 6 at 8:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @plebmatician: You're right -- they don't. Consider the case $U = U^t = 2I$, and $\Lambda = I$. Then $A = 4I$. But when we normalize to $\bar{U} = I$, we get $\bar{U}^t \Lambda \bar{U} = I$ instead of $4I$ -- to get the same answer, we need to alter $\Lambda$ (basically multiplying each diag. entry of $\Lambda$ by the squared length of the corresponding evec in $U$). In this example, we'd multiply each entry by $4$, to get $A = I (4I) I$, which is still correct. $\endgroup$ – John Hughes Mar 6 at 12:06

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.