0
$\begingroup$

I have a basic question about eigenvector.

If I have the following system:

$ \begin{pmatrix} \dot{\eta}_1 \\ \dot{\eta}_2 \\ \end{pmatrix} = {\cal{B}} \begin{pmatrix} \eta_1 \\ \eta_2 \\ \end{pmatrix} $

Where ${\cal{B}}$ is a matrix with constant parameters. For finding the solution to this system I do $\eta = P f$ where P is the eigenvector of ${\cal{B}}$, in this case, I can write:

$ \begin{pmatrix} \dot{f}_1 \\ \dot{f}_2 \\ \end{pmatrix} = {\cal{D}} \begin{pmatrix} f_1 \\ f_2 \\ \end{pmatrix} $

Where ${\cal{D}}$ is a diagonal matrix. I have two eigenvalue ($\lambda_1 $ and $\lambda_2$) and two corresponding eigenvectors ($v_1$ and $v_2$), the vector $v_1$ have components $v_{11}$ and $v_{12}$. The solution of this equation is:

$f_1 = c_0 e^{\lambda_1 t}$ and $f_1 = c_0 e^{\lambda_2 t}$,

If for example I select the first eigenvalue $\lambda_1$, then the $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ should be written like this

$$\eta_1 = c_0 v_{11} e^{\lambda_1 t} $$

$$\eta_1 = c_0 v_{12} e^{\lambda_1 t} $$

Is this correct?

And the general solution should be

$$\eta_1 = c_0 v_{11} e^{\lambda_1 t} +c_{01} v_{21} e^{\lambda_2 t} $$

$$\eta_1 = c_0 v_{12} e^{\lambda_1 t} +c_{02} v_{22} e^{\lambda_2 t}$$

Am I right? I have severe doubts about this.

Thanks

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ That's right, unless the two eigenvalues are equal : in such a case, you have to involve $te^{\lambda_1t}$ terms. $\endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Mar 20, 2020 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ I have taken the liberty to add "differential" to your title. $\endgroup$
    – Jean Marie
    Mar 20, 2020 at 17:08

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Consider the system $\dot{x} = Ax$, where $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$. If you assume $A$ to be diagonalizable (i.e. the geometric multiplicity equals the algebraic multiplicity for every eigenvalue of $A$), then you can find an invertible transformation $T\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ in terms of eigenvectors of $A$ such that $A = T \Lambda T^{-1}$, where $\Lambda = \text{diag}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_n)$. Setting $z = T^{-1}x$, the differential equation becomes \begin{equation*} \dot{z} = \Lambda z. \end{equation*} Now, as you found, the decoupled system in the $z$-coordinates makes solving the differential equation very simple, namely: \begin{equation*} z_i(t) = e^{\lambda_i t}z_i(0) ~ \text{for all $i\in\{1,2,\dots,n\}$}, \end{equation*} or, equivalently, \begin{equation*} z(t) = \text{diag}(e^{\lambda_1 t},e^{\lambda_2 t},\dots,e^{\lambda_n t}) z(0). \end{equation*} To find the solution in the original $x$-coordinates, simply reverse the transformation: \begin{equation*} x(t) = Tz(t) = T\text{diag}(e^{\lambda_1 t},e^{\lambda_2 t},\dots,e^{\lambda_n t}) T^{-1}x(0). \end{equation*}

Edit: A great resource for learning more about systems of linear ordinary differential equations (linear systems theory) is Stanford's EE263 course.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks:D, I have only one doubt. In the last equation, T is a matrix with of eigenvector of $\lambda$ written in columns, right?. In this case, for example, $x_1$, it should be equal to the first component of each eigenvector multiplied by the corresponding z_i (t), right? $\endgroup$
    – Nico
    Mar 20, 2020 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ If $A$ has $n$ linearly independent eigenvectors, then yes, $T$ is generated by stacking these eigenvectors into columns. As for your second question, not necessarily. In general, the components of $x$ depend on every component of $z$: $x(t) = Tz(t) = \begin{bmatrix}t_1 & t_2 & \cdots & t_n\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}z_1(t) \\ z_2(t) \\ \vdots \\ z_n(t) \end{bmatrix} = \sum_{i=1}^n t_i z_i(t)$, where $t_i$ is the $i$th eigenvector of $A$. $\endgroup$
    – brenderson
    Mar 20, 2020 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ Think of it like this: in the original $x$-coordinates, the components of the ODE trajectory may be correlated in some sense to one another. This is due to the coupling between different coordinates of $x$ through the structure of $A$. When we diagonalize $A$, we are changing coordinates to a system where we remove this coupling. This allows us to solve the ODE separately in each coordinate, since they are independent from one another. However, in the $x$-coordinates, the coupling still exists, and therefore when we transform back to the $x$-coordinates we end up fusing different parts of $z$. $\endgroup$
    – brenderson
    Mar 20, 2020 at 18:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This can also be written very succinctly in terms of the matrix exponential as $x(t) = \exp(At)x(0)$. Unfortunately there is not such a simple form if $A$ is nonconstant, even if it has an explicit antiderivative. $\endgroup$ Mar 20, 2020 at 18:10

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.