MHB Approximation of eigenvalue with inverse iteration method

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on using the inverse iteration method to approximate the eigenvalue of a given matrix, starting with an initial approximation of 1.2 and a vector of (1, 1, 1). Participants clarify that the power iteration method is not suitable for this case, as it only finds the largest eigenvalue. Instead, they suggest using the inverse iteration method, which requires an initial eigenvalue approximation, and the Rayleigh quotient iteration method, which refines both the eigenvalue and eigenvector. It is recommended to apply the Rayleigh quotient at each step for better accuracy. Overall, the consensus leans towards using the Rayleigh quotient iteration for improved results.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :giggle:

We have the matrix $\begin{pmatrix}2 & 1/2 & 1 \\ 1/2 & 3/2 & 1/2 \\ 1 & 1/2 & 2\end{pmatrix}$.
We take as initial approximation of $\lambda_2$ the $1.2$. We want to calculate this value approximately using the inverse iteration (2 steps) using as starting vector $x^{(0)}=\begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 1\\ 1\end{pmatrix}$.

At the inverse iteration method do we have to use at each step the Rayleigh-Quotient or only at the beginning and then just the power iteration ?
I think to get a better approximation that we have to use the Rayleigh-Quotient at each step. Is that correct?

:unsure:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey mathmari!

It seems to me that we cannot use the power iteration method, since it can only find the eigenvalue with the greatest magnitude.
Instead we can use the inverse iteration method, which finds an eigenvector given an approximation of the eigenvalue, which does not improve the eigenvalue.
Or we can use the Rayleigh quotient iteration method, which is an extension of the inverse iteration method. It improves the eigenvalue as well as the eigenvector.

Since the initial eigenvalue approximation is still a bit off, it seems to me that it's best to use the Rayleigh quotient iteration for every iteration.
Or else we should try some variants and see what works best. :unsure:
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
It seems to me that we cannot use the power iteration method, since it can only find the eigenvalue with the greatest magnitude.
Instead we can use the inverse iteration method, which finds an eigenvector given an approximation of the eigenvalue, which does not improve the eigenvalue.
Or we can use the Rayleigh quotient iteration method, which is an extension of the inverse iteration method. It improves the eigenvalue as well as the eigenvector.

Since the initial eigenvalue approximation is still a bit off, it seems to me that it's best to use the Rayleigh quotient iteration for every iteration.
Or else we should try some variants and see what works best. :unsure:

Ok! Thank you for your answer! 🤩
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
10K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Back
Top