Undergrad Does Axler's Spectral Theorem Imply Normal Matrices?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of Axler's spectral theorem regarding normal matrices and diagonalizability in complex and real inner product spaces. It explores whether a linear operator T can be diagonalizable with non-orthogonal eigenvectors if T is not normal. The consensus is that in complex spaces, normal operators guarantee a full orthonormal basis of eigenvectors, while in real spaces, self-adjoint operators provide similar guarantees. The conversation also touches on the algebraic and geometric multiplicities of eigenvalues for normal operators. Ultimately, it concludes that the spectral theorem ensures these properties for normal and self-adjoint operators.
boo
Messages
26
Reaction score
8
Going through Axler's awful book on linear algebra. The complex spectral theorem (for operator T on vector space V) states that the following are equivalent: 1) T is normal 2) V has an orthonormal basis consisting of eigenvectors of T and 3) the matrix representation of T is diagonal with respect to some orthonormal basis of V. The question I have is: does that imply that T is only diagonalizable if T is normal (on a COMPLEX inner product space)? I.e., is it possible for T to still be diagonalizable with NON-ORTHOGONAL eigenvectors of T if T is not normal? Same question for a real inner product space (R.I.P.S.) and T being not self-adjoint. Now if T is not self-adjoint (on a R.I.P.S.) there is no guarantee that real eigenvalues even exist so I assume that answer must be no.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
you might try to cook up a 2x2 example of a diagonalizable matrix with non orthogonal eigenvectors (and different eigenvalues). then check that a vector orthogonal to an eigenvector is not an eigenvector, to prove your matrix is not normal, hence proving your conjecture.
 
Does the spectral theorem guarantee that algebraic and geometric multiplicity for all eigenvalues are always equal for normal operators?
 
OK I found the answer. In a complex inner product space every normal operator (commutes with it's adjoint) is guaranteed to have a full orthonormal set of basis vectors for that space. In a real inner product space every self adjoint operator does likewise.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K