Finding an eigenvector of 3x3 matrix

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around finding an eigenvector for a 3x3 rotation matrix with an eigenvalue of λ = 1. The user initially calculated the eigenvector as t = k[-2.23, -4.02, 1] but later corrected their approach to t = k(-0.0137, 0.225, 1) after addressing a typo in the matrix. Comparisons with an online solver revealed slight discrepancies, attributed to rounding errors. A suggestion was made to use more precise values during calculations, which improved the results. Ultimately, the method for computing the eigenvectors was confirmed as correct, with the differences primarily stemming from numerical precision.
enc08
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm trying to find an eigenvector of a matrix. I know that λ = 1, so my matrix (A - λI) is
[-0.5253, 0.8593, -0.1906; -0.8612, -0.5018, 0.1010; 0.1817, 0.1161, -0.0236]

And from rows 2 and 3 I get these simultaneous equations

-0.8612t_{1}-0.5018t_{2}+0.1010t_{3}=0
0.1817t_{1}+0.1161t_{2}+0.0236t_{3}=0

I eliminate to find t_{2} = -4.02t_{3} and t_{1}=-2.23t_{3}

Thus the eigenvector is

t=k [-2.23, -4.02, 1]

But using an online solver gives the eigenvector as (-0.016, 0.206, 0.978).

Thanks for any pointers.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Before you do anything else, check to see if it is an eigenvector (At = λt ?).
Also how do know λ = 1?
 
Hi,

The reason I'm assuming λ = 1 is because A is a rotation matrix (I didn't mention this in the original post), and I'm looking for the equivalent axes eigenvector.
 
As a sanity check, I have checked the eigenvalues and λ = 1 is one of them.
 
I realized I typo in my original matrix (matrix term 3,3 in the first post should be negative). I've correct it.

I get a closer answer, but my first term appears to be incorrect:

My answer: (-0.0137, 0.225, 1)
Given answer: (-0.0088, 0.216, 1)
 
Since your matrix is a rotation matrix, the entries are sin and cos values. I would try using more precision than the 4 decimal places you show, and see if that makes a difference in your resulting eigenvector.
 
I've just been given the numbers as is, and told that it's a rotation matrix.

Can you tell if my method for computing the eigenvectors is correct?

My approach is

λ = 1, so (A - λI) is
[-0.5253, 0.8593, -0.1906; -0.8612, -0.5018, 0.1010; 0.1817, 0.1161, -0.0236]

From rows 2 and 3:

-0.8612t_{1}-0.5018t_{2}+0.1010t_{3}=0

0.1817t_{1}+0.1161t_{2}-0.0236t_{3}=0

Eliminate to find t_{2}=0.225t_{3} and t_{1}=-0.0137t_{3}

Thus the eigenvector is

t=k (-0.0137, 0.225, 1)

But the actual answer is given as (-0.0088, 0.216, 1).
 
enc08 said:
I've just been given the numbers as is, and told that it's a rotation matrix.

Can you tell if my method for computing the eigenvectors is correct?

My approach is

λ = 1, so (A - λI) is
[-0.5253, 0.8593, -0.1906; -0.8612, -0.5018, 0.1010; 0.1817, 0.1161, -0.0236]
Here's your matrix in a nicer form. To see what I did, right-click the matrix to view the underlying script.
$$A - I =\begin{bmatrix} -0.5253 & 0.8593 & -0.1906 \\ -0.8612 & -0.5018 & 0.1010 \\ 0.1817 & 0.1161 & -0.0236\end{bmatrix}$$

To check your work, I multiplied A - I above times your eigenvector x. That multiplication should produce a zero vector, but what I got was off by a little. My result was approximately < .0099, .0088, .00003>.

When you were row-reducing A - I, if you weren't careful with your arithmetic, you could have introduced a certain amount of imprecision in your results.


enc08 said:
From rows 2 and 3:

-0.8612t_{1}-0.5018t_{2}+0.1010t_{3}=0

0.1817t_{1}+0.1161t_{2}-0.0236t_{3}=0

Eliminate to find t_{2}=0.225t_{3} and t_{1}=-0.0137t_{3}

Thus the eigenvector is

t=k (-0.0137, 0.225, 1)

But the actual answer is given as (-0.0088, 0.216, 1).
This is easy to check. Just multiply (A - I) times <-0.0088, 0.216, 1>.
 
Thanks Mark44. I have used more precise values, and using your technique for testing the eigenvector, I get an answer much closer to a zero vector.

That you've confirmed my method is correct will do, especially since the discrepancies seem only due to rounding errors. I would have much preferred the question to use round numbers, but never mind :)
 
Back
Top