Canonical Form of Matrices: Understanding and Transforming

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on transforming a given matrix into its canonical form, with participants clarifying the definition of "canonical form," which can refer to various types such as Jordan, rational, or Frobenius forms. There is confusion regarding the specific type of canonical form desired, with mentions of upper triangular matrices and row echelon forms. One participant emphasizes the importance of defining terms clearly, noting that an example does not constitute a definition. The conversation also touches on the use of row operations, with a distinction made between elementary row operations and other types. Ultimately, the participants seek clarity on the transformation process and the correct definitions involved in achieving the desired canonical form.
Physicsissuef
Messages
908
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Matrix:
<br /> \left| \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \-1 &amp; -2 &amp; 5 \\<br /> 6 &amp; 3 &amp; -4 \\<br /> -3 &amp; 3 &amp; -11 \end{array} \right|\] <br />

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



How will this matrix transferred into canonical form? What is actually canonical form?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Good question. How does your textbook define "canonical form"? Look it up in the index.

I ask for two reasons. First, you need to learn to look things up for yourself. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "canonical" form. I know "Jordan canonical form" (also called "Jordan Normal form"), "rational canonical form", and "Frobenius canonical form". It's perfectly correct to use "canonical form" as long as you are talking about just one of those but I don't know which.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my book, says, turn that matrix with row transformations.
For example.
R_2\rightarrow 3*R_1+R_3
So I'll get:
<br /> \left| \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \-1 &amp; -2 &amp; 5 \\<br /> 6 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> -3 &amp; 3 &amp; -11 \end{array} \right|\] <br />
 
Turn it into what? Triangular form? Row Echelon?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Turn it into what? Triangular form? Row Echelon?

Turn into canonical scale matrix. Like
<br /> \left| \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \ 1 &amp; -2 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \end{array} \right|\] <br />
 
Do u know some other method of turning?
 
I know how to do many different things by "row operations". I was trying to get you to tell what kind of "canonical" matrix you were talking about! It appears that you mean what I would call an "upper triangular matrix". Unfortunately, an example is not a definition (I've lost track of how many times I have told students that). In particular, you example has two 0s on the diagonal which is not, in general, possible. An "upper triangular matrix is a matrix that has only 0s below the main diagonal, but can have anything on or above it. But I don't see how
R_2\rightarrow 3*R_1+R_3
will accomplish that or what it is intended to accomplish. Could you please give me your definition of "canonical (scale) matrix" as I asked initially?
 
Physicsissuef said:
R_2\rightarrow 3*R_1+R_3
While that is a row operation, it's not an elementary row operation, nor is it the product of such operations.
 
Physicsissuef said:
R_2\rightarrow 3*R_1+R_3

Hurkyl said:
While that is a row operation, it's not an elementary row operation, nor is it the product of such operations.

Oh, you're right. I didn't even notice the change in index.
 
  • #10
In scale matrices, there are zeros like scales, it is not upper triangular matrix. So I can create scale with minimum 0 zero in one row, and +1 in the others.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top