$\bbox[5px,border:2px solid gray]{ \text{ Case 3 } }$ If $\dim E_{\lambda}=1$, take a nonzero $v\in E_{\lambda}$, then $\{v\}$ is a basis for $E_{\lambda}$. Extend this to a basis $\mathfrak{B}=\{v,\ w\}$ for $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ by choosing $w\in \mathbb{C}^{2}\backslash E_{\lambda}$. If $Aw = \alpha v+\beta w$, then there exists a transformation matrix $P$ (that transforms the original $\{v\}$ to $\mathfrak{B}$), such that $C =P^{-1}AP=\left(\begin{array}{ll} \lambda & \alpha\\ 0 & \beta \end{array}\right) \quad (♦) $

But in this case 3, $C$ must satisfy $\dim E_{\lambda}=1$. So for $C$, and thence $A$, to have $\lambda$ of algebraic multiplicity of 2, then $ C =\left(\begin{array}{ll} \lambda & \alpha\\ 0 & \lambda \end{array}\right) $. (I omit a paragraph deemed unnecessary)

Moreover, since $ Cw=u+\lambda w, $ if we consider the alternative basis $B' =\{u,\ w\}$ then there is a transformation matrix, say $Q$, such that $Q^{-1}CQ =\left(\begin{array}{ll} \lambda & 1\\ 0 & \lambda \end{array}\right). $ Finally, use $(♦)$ to substitute A for $C$ : $Q^{-1}CQ = (PQ)^{-1}A(PQ)$.

$5.$ Christiaan Hattingh's answer below says: Because "w is not an eigenvector of C, ... $Cw=u+λw$ " ? Why not $ku+λw$ for some $k$?

Then how does he prove that $u = \alpha v$? I don't perceive the "noticing Aw = ..." ?

$6.$ Why is $Q = \begin{bmatrix} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}$ ? (See his answer to 6)

$9.$ What's the proof strategy? I'm flummoxed by all this algebra.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps you should cut your loooooong question in shorter chunks... $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio May 17 '14 at 16:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DonAntonio: Would you have any advice on how to shorten but not split or divide the proof into different questions? $\endgroup$ – Greek - Area 51 Proposal May 17 '14 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ What is $E_\lambda$? It is not clear what you are trying to prove; the question just seems to list three matrices. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert May 27 '14 at 11:05

5.$\;$Again here, since $w$ is not an eigenvector of $C$ we cannot have $Cw=\lambda w$...so there must be some vector $u$, so that $Cw=u+\lambda w$. In fact we can do better, by noticing $Aw=1\cdot(\alpha v)+\lambda w$, and $A(\alpha v)=\lambda \cdot(\alpha v)$...so in fact $u=\alpha v$.

6.$\;$Again here, just take $Q=\begin{bmatrix} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}$, and then calculate $Q^{-1}CQ$ to get the required matrix. The verification that this is indeed so, is the same as for point 2 above.

9.$\;$It's a constructive proof, showing you how to find a Jordan Canonical form for a matrix in $\mathscr{M}_{2 \times 2}(\mathbb{C})$ for a matrix that cannot be diagonalized.

I respond separately, to try and clarify as per OP's request in comments:

ok, now to further expound 5. If $Cw \neq \lambda w$, then there must be some other vector which is not a scalar multiple (i.e. linearly dependent) of $w$ so that $Cw$ equals $\lambda w$ plus this other ("unknown") vector. Let us denote this vector as $u$. So then $Cw=u+\lambda w$. We cannot have a third linearly independent vector in this equation, since the dimension of $\mathbb{C}^2$ is 2.

I am not going to add any more to this answer, but here is my suggestion to you - why not try this out in "practice". Take the following matrix: \begin{equation} \begin{bmatrix} \frac{3}{2} & \frac{1}{4} \\ -1 & \frac{5}{2} \end{bmatrix}, \end{equation} find it's eigenvalue and a corresponding eigenvector. Then follow the proof step by step (so find the matrix $P$, calculate $P^{-1}AP$, etc.) and see if you can get to the form \begin{equation} \begin{bmatrix} \lambda & 1 \\ 0 & \lambda \end{bmatrix}. \end{equation}

  • $\begingroup$ Hi @LePressentiment. ok - I have also made point 2 clearer...please check it, and let me know if you need further clarification... $\endgroup$ – Christiaan Hattingh May 26 '14 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ @LePressentiment You have the matrix $P$, so all you have to do is calculate $P^{-1}AP$...I am just showing why $C$ is then upper triangular. $\endgroup$ – Christiaan Hattingh May 26 '14 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ ok, I have tried to answer further...I'd say if i have to explain more, that maybe the problem is more with understanding the fundamental aspects of eigenvectors/eigenvalues, similarity and diagonalization, and if that is the case I would recommend studying those concept in detail first. $\endgroup$ – Christiaan Hattingh May 26 '14 at 18:47
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I hope that you will add more. I now see 2. But I'e more questions about 5, 6, 9. Will you please to respond in your answer, and not as comments? $\endgroup$ – Greek - Area 51 Proposal May 28 '14 at 11:05
  • $\begingroup$ Also, would you please move anything in your answer about 2 to my new question at math.stackexchange.com/q/812525/53259 $\endgroup$ – Greek - Area 51 Proposal May 28 '14 at 13:08

Any square (complex) matrix $A$ has at least an eigenvalue $\lambda_1$, with an eigenvector $v_1$. We can complete the eigenvector to a basis $\mathscr{B}=\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n\}$ of $\mathbb{C}^n$ ($n$ is the order of $A$). Then, the linear map $f\colon \mathbb{C}^n\to\mathbb{C}^n$ defined by $f(v)=Av$ has, as representing matrix with respect to $\mathscr{B}$ the matrix $$ C=\begin{bmatrix} C_{\mathscr{B}}(Av_1) & C_{\mathscr{B}}(Av_2) & \dots & C_{\mathscr{B}}(Av_n) \end{bmatrix} $$ where $C_{\mathscr{B}}(v)$ denotes the coordinate vector with respect to $\mathscr{B}$, that is $$ C_{\mathscr{B}}(v)= \begin{bmatrix} \alpha_1\\ \alpha_2\\ \vdots\\ \alpha_n \end{bmatrix} \quad\text{if and only if}\quad v=\alpha_1v_1+\alpha_2v_2+\dots+\alpha_nv_n. $$ Now, $Av_1=\lambda_1v_1$, so the first column of $C$ is $$ \begin{bmatrix} \lambda_1\\ 0\\ \vdots\\ 0 \end{bmatrix}. $$ Note that the matrix $C$ is similar to $A$, because $A=PCP^{-1}$, where $P=\begin{bmatrix}v_1&v_2&\dots&v_n\end{bmatrix}$. In this way we can prove, by induction, that every matrix is similar to a triangular matrix.

In the particular case when $n=2$, the matrix $C$ is already triangular: $$ C=\begin{bmatrix} \lambda_1 & t\\ 0 & \lambda_2 \end{bmatrix}\,. $$ Note that, since $A$ and $C$ are similar, the diagonal elements of $C$ are exactly the eigenvalues of $A$: similar matrices have the same eigenvalues and the eigenvalues of a triangular matrix are the coefficients on the diagonal.

Case 1: $\lambda_2\ne\lambda_1$

We can choose $v_2$ to be an eigenvector relative to $\lambda_2$, and in this case we have $t=0$.

Case 2: $\lambda_2=\lambda_1$ and the dimension of the eigenspace is $2$

We can choose $v_2$ to be an eigenvector relative to $\lambda_1$; again $t=0$.

Case 3: $\lambda_2=\lambda_1$ and the dimension of the eigenspace is $1$

There is no way to make $C$ diagonal, because saying that $t=0$ means that $v_2$ is an eigenvector relative to $\lambda_2=\lambda_1$, against the eigenspace having dimension $1$.

If $x$ is such that $\{v_1,x\}$ is linearly independent, then $Ax=\alpha v_1+\lambda_1x$, with $\alpha\ne0$. Note that the coefficient to $x$ is forced by the hypothesis that $A$ has the eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ with algebraic multiplicity $2$ and geometric multiplicity $1$.

If $t\ne0$, setting $v_2=\alpha^{-1}tx$, we have that $$ Av_2=\alpha^{-1}t(Ax)=\alpha^{-1}t\alpha v_1+\alpha^{-1}t\lambda_1 x= tv_1+\lambda_1v_2, $$ which means that we can choose $v_2$ so that the representing matrix with respect to $\mathscr{B}=\{v_1,v_2\}$ is $$ \begin{bmatrix} \lambda_1 & t\\ 0 & \lambda_1 \end{bmatrix} $$ with an arbitrary $t\ne0$. Choosing $t=1$ is surely very reasonable, but not at all required.

You see that the consideration of the generalized eigenvectors in the very simple case of $n=2$ can be avoided. However, it is really necessary when higher order matrices are concerned, because it leads to the concept of Jordan decomposition.

  • $\begingroup$ Please advise if my edit is correct? $\endgroup$ – Greek - Area 51 Proposal May 27 '14 at 11:13
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Would you please explain how you calculated the 2 x 2 upper triangular $C$? It looks like you're saying $Av_2 = tv_1 + \lambda_2v_2$ ? but how and why is this true? $\endgroup$ – Greek - Area 51 Proposal May 27 '14 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ @LePressentiment Yes, some B's had to be C's. How do I compute $C$? Via the definition of representing matrix with respect to a basis; either you know it or you need to learn it. $\endgroup$ – egreg May 27 '14 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ I see how to calculate the 1st column of C with coordinates, but not the 2nd. Would you please provide the details in your answer? $\endgroup$ – Greek - Area 51 Proposal May 27 '14 at 13:32

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.