Why Do Rank 1 Matrices Have Eigenvalues 0 and Trace?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the eigenvalues of rank 1 matrices, specifically addressing why such matrices have eigenvalues of 0 and the trace of the matrix. Participants explore various proofs and reasoning related to this concept, including the implications of row operations and the structure of rank 1 matrices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the existence of proofs for the eigenvalues of rank 1 matrices beyond the determinant approach.
  • Another participant suggests that row operations can reduce a rank 1 matrix to a simpler form, leading to eigenvalues of 0 and the trace, but later acknowledges a flaw in their reasoning regarding the preservation of trace.
  • A further argument is made that for a rank k matrix, a basis can be chosen such that k columns are nonzero, and the transformation between bases can be orthogonal, preserving the trace.
  • It is noted that any rank 1 matrix is singular, thus confirming 0 as an eigenvalue, and a specific form of rank 1 matrices (as outer products) is discussed to derive the nonzero eigenvalue as the trace.
  • One participant points out that having a trace of zero does not imply distinct eigenvalues, providing an example of a rank 1 matrix with only the eigenvalue 0.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and reasoning regarding the eigenvalues of rank 1 matrices, with no consensus reached on the proofs or implications discussed. Multiple competing views remain regarding the preservation of trace and the nature of eigenvalues.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on assumptions about the properties of row operations and the structure of rank 1 matrices, which may not universally apply. The discussion also highlights the potential for zero traces in rank 1 matrices without resolving the implications of such cases.

brownman
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
How come a square matrix has eigenvalues of 0 and the trace of the matrix?
Is there any other proof other than just solving det(A-λI)=0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I might argue something like the following: By row operations, a rank 1 matrix may be reduced to a matrix with only the first row being nonzero. The eigenvectors of such a matrix may be chosen to be the ordinary Euclidian basis, in which the eigenvalues become zero's and the 11-component of this reduced matrix. As row operations are invertible, the trace is unchanged, and thus this nonzero eigenvalue equals the trace of the original matrix.

Afterthought: But that is probably erroneous, because even though the row operations are indeed invertible, they do not generally preserve the trace. So the last part of my argument fails.

A better argument seems to be the following: For a rank k matrix there exists a basis in which k of its columns are nonzero, the other ones being zero. The transformation between bases may be chosen to be orthogonal, thus preserving the trace.
 
Last edited:
We assume ##A## is an ##n \times n## rank one matrix. If ##n > 1##, any rank one matrix is singular. Therefore ##\lambda = 0## is an eigenvalue: for an eigenvector, just take any nonzero ##v## such that ##Av = 0##.

So let's see if there are any nonzero eigenvalues.

If ##A## is a rank one matrix, then all of its columns are scalar multiples of each other. Thus we may write ##A = xy^T## where ##x## and ##y## are nonzero ##n \times 1## vectors.

If ##\lambda## is an eigenvalue of ##A##, then there is a nonzero vector ##v## such that ##Av = \lambda v##. This means that ##(xy^T)v = \lambda v##. By associativity, we may rewrite the left hand side as ##x(y^T v) = \lambda v##.

Note that ##y^T v## is a scalar, and of course ##\lambda## is also a scalar. If we assume ##\lambda \neq 0##, then this means that ##v## is a scalar multiple of ##x##: specifically, ##v = x(y^T v)/\lambda##.

Therefore ##x## itself is an eigenvector associated with ##\lambda##, so we have ##x(y^T x) = \lambda x##, or equivalently, ##x(\lambda - y^T x) = 0##. As ##x## is nonzero, this forces ##\lambda = y^T x##.

All that remains is to recognize that ##y^T x = \sum_{n = 1}^{N} x_n y_n## is the trace of ##A = xy^T##.
 
By the way, note that this does not necessarily mean that ##A## has two distinct eigenvalues. The trace may well be zero, for example
$$A = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
-1 & -1
\end{bmatrix}$$
is a rank one matrix whose only eigenvalue is 0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K