Repeated roots of $det(A-xI)$











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












The solutions of the equation $det(A-xI)=0$ give rise to the eigenvalues of Matrix $A$. This confuses me because the equation can give repeated roots. Suppose there is a root $x=lambda$ of multiplicity $n$, and the corresponding eigenvectors are ${v_1,v_2,...,v_n}$. Then any linear combination of these vectors is an eigenvector, because $A(v_1+v_2)=Av_1+Av_2=lambda v_1+lambda v_2=lambda(v_1+v_2)$ .



What I find puzzling is that those $n$ vectors doesn't have to be linear independent. For example, the matrix $begin{bmatrix}1&0\-4&1end {bmatrix}$ has a repeated eigenvalue $lambda=1$ of multiplicity 2, but the corresponding vector space of eigenvectors is only one dimensional, spanned by $(0,1)^T$. This lead me to the following questions.




If a non-singular matrix $A$ satisfies $operatorname{rank}(A-lambda I)=operatorname{rank}(A)-n$, does the equation $det(A-xI)=0$ always have a repeated root of multiplicity greater than or equal to $n$ at $x=lambda$?



Under what conditions are those ${v_1,v_2,...,v_n}$ above linearly independent?











share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    The solutions of the equation $det(A-xI)=0$ give rise to the eigenvalues of Matrix $A$. This confuses me because the equation can give repeated roots. Suppose there is a root $x=lambda$ of multiplicity $n$, and the corresponding eigenvectors are ${v_1,v_2,...,v_n}$. Then any linear combination of these vectors is an eigenvector, because $A(v_1+v_2)=Av_1+Av_2=lambda v_1+lambda v_2=lambda(v_1+v_2)$ .



    What I find puzzling is that those $n$ vectors doesn't have to be linear independent. For example, the matrix $begin{bmatrix}1&0\-4&1end {bmatrix}$ has a repeated eigenvalue $lambda=1$ of multiplicity 2, but the corresponding vector space of eigenvectors is only one dimensional, spanned by $(0,1)^T$. This lead me to the following questions.




    If a non-singular matrix $A$ satisfies $operatorname{rank}(A-lambda I)=operatorname{rank}(A)-n$, does the equation $det(A-xI)=0$ always have a repeated root of multiplicity greater than or equal to $n$ at $x=lambda$?



    Under what conditions are those ${v_1,v_2,...,v_n}$ above linearly independent?











    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      The solutions of the equation $det(A-xI)=0$ give rise to the eigenvalues of Matrix $A$. This confuses me because the equation can give repeated roots. Suppose there is a root $x=lambda$ of multiplicity $n$, and the corresponding eigenvectors are ${v_1,v_2,...,v_n}$. Then any linear combination of these vectors is an eigenvector, because $A(v_1+v_2)=Av_1+Av_2=lambda v_1+lambda v_2=lambda(v_1+v_2)$ .



      What I find puzzling is that those $n$ vectors doesn't have to be linear independent. For example, the matrix $begin{bmatrix}1&0\-4&1end {bmatrix}$ has a repeated eigenvalue $lambda=1$ of multiplicity 2, but the corresponding vector space of eigenvectors is only one dimensional, spanned by $(0,1)^T$. This lead me to the following questions.




      If a non-singular matrix $A$ satisfies $operatorname{rank}(A-lambda I)=operatorname{rank}(A)-n$, does the equation $det(A-xI)=0$ always have a repeated root of multiplicity greater than or equal to $n$ at $x=lambda$?



      Under what conditions are those ${v_1,v_2,...,v_n}$ above linearly independent?











      share|cite|improve this question















      The solutions of the equation $det(A-xI)=0$ give rise to the eigenvalues of Matrix $A$. This confuses me because the equation can give repeated roots. Suppose there is a root $x=lambda$ of multiplicity $n$, and the corresponding eigenvectors are ${v_1,v_2,...,v_n}$. Then any linear combination of these vectors is an eigenvector, because $A(v_1+v_2)=Av_1+Av_2=lambda v_1+lambda v_2=lambda(v_1+v_2)$ .



      What I find puzzling is that those $n$ vectors doesn't have to be linear independent. For example, the matrix $begin{bmatrix}1&0\-4&1end {bmatrix}$ has a repeated eigenvalue $lambda=1$ of multiplicity 2, but the corresponding vector space of eigenvectors is only one dimensional, spanned by $(0,1)^T$. This lead me to the following questions.




      If a non-singular matrix $A$ satisfies $operatorname{rank}(A-lambda I)=operatorname{rank}(A)-n$, does the equation $det(A-xI)=0$ always have a repeated root of multiplicity greater than or equal to $n$ at $x=lambda$?



      Under what conditions are those ${v_1,v_2,...,v_n}$ above linearly independent?








      linear-algebra matrices eigenvalues-eigenvectors matrix-rank






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 27 at 10:12









      Bernard

      117k637109




      117k637109










      asked Nov 27 at 7:21









      Ma Joad

      809216




      809216






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          The best way to think about this might be the eigenspaces, not eigenvectors. If you have a nondegenerate eigenvalue (i.e. $n=1$), the space of eigenvectors is $1$-dimensional and thus you can determine it by giving a single nonzero vector $v_1$, which automatically yields a basis ${v_1}$.



          If you have $n > 1$ though, what you mean by ${v_1, ..., v_n}$ is some basis of the eigenspace, and that's just where the linear independence comes from. As a basis, the $v_i$ are in no way uniquely determined though. I think that's where your confusion comes from.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            The way I read the question, this isn't about the non-uniqueness (up to scaling) of an eigenbasis, but about how there are "missing" dimensions of the eigenspace compared to the multiplicity of roots in the characteristic polynomial.
            – Arthur
            Nov 27 at 7:36




















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          This is not a full answer. It's just a collection of thoughts related to your predicament. It is, however, a bit long for a comment.



          What you have here is an example of an eigenvalue whose geometric multiplicity (the dimension of the corresponding eigenspace) is strictly smaller than the algebraic multiplicity (the degree of the root of the characteristic polynomial).



          One concept invented to resolve this is generalized eigenvectors, which are vectors $v$ where $(A-lambda I)v$ isn't necessarily $0$, but $(A-lambda I)^nv=0$ for some natural number $n$. And you can always find enough generalized eigenvectors for a given eigenvalue to make up for the discrepancy you noted here. In your case, any vector in the plane is a generalized eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $1$, which suits the degree of the root $lambda=1$ in your characteristic polynomial.



          If all the eigenvalues does have the "correct" dimension of all its eigenspaces, then the matrix and the linear transformation it represents is diagonalizable. If there is some eigenspace which is "too small", then it is not diagonalizable. The resolution here, related to the concept of generalized eigenvectors above, is the so-called Jordan normal form, which says that when transforming $A$ to some specific basis of generalized eigenvectors, the resulting matrix is almost diagonal. It will have the eigenvalues in the diagonal, and $1$'s in some places along the superdiagonal (and otherwise $0$).






          share|cite|improve this answer























            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015451%2frepeated-roots-of-deta-xi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            1
            down vote













            The best way to think about this might be the eigenspaces, not eigenvectors. If you have a nondegenerate eigenvalue (i.e. $n=1$), the space of eigenvectors is $1$-dimensional and thus you can determine it by giving a single nonzero vector $v_1$, which automatically yields a basis ${v_1}$.



            If you have $n > 1$ though, what you mean by ${v_1, ..., v_n}$ is some basis of the eigenspace, and that's just where the linear independence comes from. As a basis, the $v_i$ are in no way uniquely determined though. I think that's where your confusion comes from.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              The way I read the question, this isn't about the non-uniqueness (up to scaling) of an eigenbasis, but about how there are "missing" dimensions of the eigenspace compared to the multiplicity of roots in the characteristic polynomial.
              – Arthur
              Nov 27 at 7:36

















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            The best way to think about this might be the eigenspaces, not eigenvectors. If you have a nondegenerate eigenvalue (i.e. $n=1$), the space of eigenvectors is $1$-dimensional and thus you can determine it by giving a single nonzero vector $v_1$, which automatically yields a basis ${v_1}$.



            If you have $n > 1$ though, what you mean by ${v_1, ..., v_n}$ is some basis of the eigenspace, and that's just where the linear independence comes from. As a basis, the $v_i$ are in no way uniquely determined though. I think that's where your confusion comes from.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              The way I read the question, this isn't about the non-uniqueness (up to scaling) of an eigenbasis, but about how there are "missing" dimensions of the eigenspace compared to the multiplicity of roots in the characteristic polynomial.
              – Arthur
              Nov 27 at 7:36















            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            The best way to think about this might be the eigenspaces, not eigenvectors. If you have a nondegenerate eigenvalue (i.e. $n=1$), the space of eigenvectors is $1$-dimensional and thus you can determine it by giving a single nonzero vector $v_1$, which automatically yields a basis ${v_1}$.



            If you have $n > 1$ though, what you mean by ${v_1, ..., v_n}$ is some basis of the eigenspace, and that's just where the linear independence comes from. As a basis, the $v_i$ are in no way uniquely determined though. I think that's where your confusion comes from.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            The best way to think about this might be the eigenspaces, not eigenvectors. If you have a nondegenerate eigenvalue (i.e. $n=1$), the space of eigenvectors is $1$-dimensional and thus you can determine it by giving a single nonzero vector $v_1$, which automatically yields a basis ${v_1}$.



            If you have $n > 1$ though, what you mean by ${v_1, ..., v_n}$ is some basis of the eigenspace, and that's just where the linear independence comes from. As a basis, the $v_i$ are in no way uniquely determined though. I think that's where your confusion comes from.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 27 at 7:28









            Gnampfissimo

            18011




            18011








            • 1




              The way I read the question, this isn't about the non-uniqueness (up to scaling) of an eigenbasis, but about how there are "missing" dimensions of the eigenspace compared to the multiplicity of roots in the characteristic polynomial.
              – Arthur
              Nov 27 at 7:36
















            • 1




              The way I read the question, this isn't about the non-uniqueness (up to scaling) of an eigenbasis, but about how there are "missing" dimensions of the eigenspace compared to the multiplicity of roots in the characteristic polynomial.
              – Arthur
              Nov 27 at 7:36










            1




            1




            The way I read the question, this isn't about the non-uniqueness (up to scaling) of an eigenbasis, but about how there are "missing" dimensions of the eigenspace compared to the multiplicity of roots in the characteristic polynomial.
            – Arthur
            Nov 27 at 7:36






            The way I read the question, this isn't about the non-uniqueness (up to scaling) of an eigenbasis, but about how there are "missing" dimensions of the eigenspace compared to the multiplicity of roots in the characteristic polynomial.
            – Arthur
            Nov 27 at 7:36












            up vote
            1
            down vote













            This is not a full answer. It's just a collection of thoughts related to your predicament. It is, however, a bit long for a comment.



            What you have here is an example of an eigenvalue whose geometric multiplicity (the dimension of the corresponding eigenspace) is strictly smaller than the algebraic multiplicity (the degree of the root of the characteristic polynomial).



            One concept invented to resolve this is generalized eigenvectors, which are vectors $v$ where $(A-lambda I)v$ isn't necessarily $0$, but $(A-lambda I)^nv=0$ for some natural number $n$. And you can always find enough generalized eigenvectors for a given eigenvalue to make up for the discrepancy you noted here. In your case, any vector in the plane is a generalized eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $1$, which suits the degree of the root $lambda=1$ in your characteristic polynomial.



            If all the eigenvalues does have the "correct" dimension of all its eigenspaces, then the matrix and the linear transformation it represents is diagonalizable. If there is some eigenspace which is "too small", then it is not diagonalizable. The resolution here, related to the concept of generalized eigenvectors above, is the so-called Jordan normal form, which says that when transforming $A$ to some specific basis of generalized eigenvectors, the resulting matrix is almost diagonal. It will have the eigenvalues in the diagonal, and $1$'s in some places along the superdiagonal (and otherwise $0$).






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              1
              down vote













              This is not a full answer. It's just a collection of thoughts related to your predicament. It is, however, a bit long for a comment.



              What you have here is an example of an eigenvalue whose geometric multiplicity (the dimension of the corresponding eigenspace) is strictly smaller than the algebraic multiplicity (the degree of the root of the characteristic polynomial).



              One concept invented to resolve this is generalized eigenvectors, which are vectors $v$ where $(A-lambda I)v$ isn't necessarily $0$, but $(A-lambda I)^nv=0$ for some natural number $n$. And you can always find enough generalized eigenvectors for a given eigenvalue to make up for the discrepancy you noted here. In your case, any vector in the plane is a generalized eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $1$, which suits the degree of the root $lambda=1$ in your characteristic polynomial.



              If all the eigenvalues does have the "correct" dimension of all its eigenspaces, then the matrix and the linear transformation it represents is diagonalizable. If there is some eigenspace which is "too small", then it is not diagonalizable. The resolution here, related to the concept of generalized eigenvectors above, is the so-called Jordan normal form, which says that when transforming $A$ to some specific basis of generalized eigenvectors, the resulting matrix is almost diagonal. It will have the eigenvalues in the diagonal, and $1$'s in some places along the superdiagonal (and otherwise $0$).






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                1
                down vote










                up vote
                1
                down vote









                This is not a full answer. It's just a collection of thoughts related to your predicament. It is, however, a bit long for a comment.



                What you have here is an example of an eigenvalue whose geometric multiplicity (the dimension of the corresponding eigenspace) is strictly smaller than the algebraic multiplicity (the degree of the root of the characteristic polynomial).



                One concept invented to resolve this is generalized eigenvectors, which are vectors $v$ where $(A-lambda I)v$ isn't necessarily $0$, but $(A-lambda I)^nv=0$ for some natural number $n$. And you can always find enough generalized eigenvectors for a given eigenvalue to make up for the discrepancy you noted here. In your case, any vector in the plane is a generalized eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $1$, which suits the degree of the root $lambda=1$ in your characteristic polynomial.



                If all the eigenvalues does have the "correct" dimension of all its eigenspaces, then the matrix and the linear transformation it represents is diagonalizable. If there is some eigenspace which is "too small", then it is not diagonalizable. The resolution here, related to the concept of generalized eigenvectors above, is the so-called Jordan normal form, which says that when transforming $A$ to some specific basis of generalized eigenvectors, the resulting matrix is almost diagonal. It will have the eigenvalues in the diagonal, and $1$'s in some places along the superdiagonal (and otherwise $0$).






                share|cite|improve this answer














                This is not a full answer. It's just a collection of thoughts related to your predicament. It is, however, a bit long for a comment.



                What you have here is an example of an eigenvalue whose geometric multiplicity (the dimension of the corresponding eigenspace) is strictly smaller than the algebraic multiplicity (the degree of the root of the characteristic polynomial).



                One concept invented to resolve this is generalized eigenvectors, which are vectors $v$ where $(A-lambda I)v$ isn't necessarily $0$, but $(A-lambda I)^nv=0$ for some natural number $n$. And you can always find enough generalized eigenvectors for a given eigenvalue to make up for the discrepancy you noted here. In your case, any vector in the plane is a generalized eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $1$, which suits the degree of the root $lambda=1$ in your characteristic polynomial.



                If all the eigenvalues does have the "correct" dimension of all its eigenspaces, then the matrix and the linear transformation it represents is diagonalizable. If there is some eigenspace which is "too small", then it is not diagonalizable. The resolution here, related to the concept of generalized eigenvectors above, is the so-called Jordan normal form, which says that when transforming $A$ to some specific basis of generalized eigenvectors, the resulting matrix is almost diagonal. It will have the eigenvalues in the diagonal, and $1$'s in some places along the superdiagonal (and otherwise $0$).







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Nov 27 at 7:45

























                answered Nov 27 at 7:40









                Arthur

                110k7104186




                110k7104186






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015451%2frepeated-roots-of-deta-xi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Tonle Sap (See)

                    I get strange results when I access the Sqlitedatabase with Unity C# via XAMPP

                    Guatemaltekische Davis-Cup-Mannschaft