Can Non-Diagonalizable Matrices Have Square Roots?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether non-diagonalizable matrices can have square roots, specifically focusing on a 2x2 matrix that cannot be diagonalized. Participants explore definitions and properties related to diagonalization and matrix square roots.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a specific 2x2 matrix, \(\begin{bmatrix}1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1\end{bmatrix}\), as an example of a non-diagonalizable matrix and discusses the conditions for finding its square roots.
  • The same participant outlines the necessary equations that must be satisfied for a matrix to be a square root of the given matrix.
  • Another participant challenges the example by asserting that the presented matrix is already diagonalized based on their interpretation of what constitutes a diagonal matrix.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the definitions of diagonal, upper triangular, and lower triangular matrices, with references to common definitions in literature.
  • One participant expresses gratitude for the clarification regarding the definitions of diagonal matrices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the definition of diagonal matrices, with no consensus reached on the interpretation of diagonalization in the context of the example provided.

Contextual Notes

There are differing definitions of diagonal matrices among participants, leading to confusion about the example's validity. The discussion highlights the importance of precise terminology in mathematical contexts.

SometimesY
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hey all,

I've run into a snag with research and it is partly related to taking the square root of a matrix. I've seen related stuff concerning matrices that can be diagonalized, however the 2x2 matrix in question is not diagonalizable. Can the square root of such a matrix be determined? If so, how?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SometimesY: Boy, I would like to see a 2x2 matrix that cannot be diagonalized!
 
Here's one:
[tex]\begin{bmatrix}1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1\end{bmatrix}[/tex]

Happy?

If a 2 by 2 matrix cannot be diagonalized, it must have a single eigenvalue and it can be put into "Jordan Normal Form",
[tex]\begin{bmatrix}x & 1 \\ 0 & x\end{bmatrix}[/tex]
where "x" is that single eigenvalue.

Now, if
[tex]\begin{bmatrix}a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix}[/tex]
is a "square root" for that matrix, we must have
[tex]\begin{bmatrix}a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}a^2+ bc & ab+ bd \\ ac+ dc & bc+ d^2\end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix}x & 1 \\ 0 & x\end{bmatrix}[/tex]

That is, we must have [itex]a^2+ bc= x[/itex], [itex]ab+ bd= 1[/itex], [itex]ac+ dc= 0[/itex], and [itex]bc+ d^2= x[/itex].

From [itex]ac+ dc= c(a+ d)= 0[/itex] we must have either c=0 or a+ d= 0. But a+ d= 0 cannot satisfy [itex]ab+ bd= b(a+ d)= 1[/itex] so we must have c= 0.

Then [itex]a^2+ bc= a^2= x[/itex] and [itex]bc+ d^2= d^2= x[/itex].

Since [itex]a^2= d^2= x[/itex] we must have either a= d or a= -d. If a= -d then ab+ db= b(a+d)= 0 so that ab+ db= 1 is impossible. If a= d, then ab+ db= 2ab= 1 so that b= 1/(2a). That is, the matrix
[tex]\begin{bmatrix}x & 1 \\ 0 & x\end{bmatrix}[/tex]
has two square roots:
[tex]\begin{bmatrix}\sqrt{x} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{x}} \\ 0 & \sqrt{x}\end{bmatrix}[/tex]
and
[tex]\begin{bmatrix}-\sqrt{x} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x}} \\ 0 & -\sqrt{x}\end{bmatrix}[/tex]
 
Halls of Ivy: Nice try. But your example is a matrix which is already diagonalized. I understand a diagonal matrix to be one where the main diagonal has all non-zero entries and only zero entries above or below the main diagonal.
 
SteamKing said:
I understand a diagonal matrix to be one where the main diagonal has all non-zero entries and only zero entries above or below the main diagonal.

Sorry, but that is not the definition that everybody else uses.

The thing you described is a upper or lower triangular matrix. Upper and lower say which side of the diagonal has non-zero terms.
 
Thanks HallsofIvy! That's exactly what I was looking for. It means a lot!
 
SteamKing said:
Halls of Ivy: Nice try. But your example is a matrix which is already diagonalized. I understand a diagonal matrix to be one where the main diagonal has all non-zero entries and only zero entries above or below the main diagonal.
Those are "upper triangular" and "lower triangular" matrices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_matrix

"Diagonal" matrices, oddly enough, are those that are non-zero only on the main diagonal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_matrix

What textbook or other place defines a "diagonal matrix" the way you say?
 
I stand corrected.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K