2
$\begingroup$

Would someone please explain the proof strategy at Need verification - Prove a Hermitian matrix $(\textbf{A}^\ast = \textbf{A})$ has only real eigenvalues? I brook the algebra so I'm not asking about formal arguments or proofs. For example, $1.$ How would you determine/divine/previse to take the Hermitian conjugate and to right-multiply by $\color{orangered}{\vec{v}}$?

$2.$ Since we are given that $A$ is Hermitian and has eigenvalues, why not start the proof with $A^*\mathbf{v} = \lambda^*\mathbf{v}$? Here, $\mathbf{v}$ is an eigenvector and so by definition $\neq \mathbf{0}$.

Then $\begin{align} LHS = Av & = \\ \lambda v & = \end{align}$

$\iff \lambda \mathbf{v} = \lambda^*\mathbf{v} \iff \mathbf{0} = (\lambda^* - \lambda )\mathbf{v} \iff \mathbf{v} \neq \mathbf{0}, so \, (\lambda^* - \lambda )=0. $

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ..."I brook the algebra"? $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Apr 24 '14 at 16:03
1
$\begingroup$

Regarding 1:

Intuitively, it comes down to the fact that we need to prove the fact that $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ using the facts that $A = A^*$ and $Av = \lambda v$ for some vector $v \neq 0$. In order to bring $A^*$ into play, we have to take the Hermitian conjugate of both sides at some point.

As for multiplying by $v$: well, once you see $A^*$, you note that this is equal to $A$; there's one step in the right direction. In order to get from "talking about $A$" to "talking about $\lambda$", we need to multiply by $v$ on the right.

Regarding 2:

It is not generally the case that for a matrix $A$ with eigen-pair $\lambda,v$ $$ A^*v = \lambda^*v \tag{NOT GENERALLY TRUE} $$ While we can say that $\lambda^*$ must be an eigenvalue of $A$, the associated eigenvector for $A^*$ is not related to the associated eigenvector for $A$.

$\endgroup$

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.