MHB Eigenvalues are real numbers and satisfy inequality

Click For Summary
Eigenvalues of the matrix A + A* for a complex unitary matrix A are real numbers that must satisfy the inequality -2 ≤ λ ≤ 2. The discussion raises the question of whether finding the minimal polynomial of A + A* is necessary for this proof. A participant points out that using the specific matrix A = [[0, -1], [1, 0]] leads to imaginary eigenvalues, suggesting a potential misunderstanding. The importance of the unitary matrix property, which preserves vector norms, is highlighted as a means to establish the upper bound of 2 for the eigenvalues. Overall, the conversation focuses on proving the real nature and bounds of the eigenvalues of A + A*.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

Let $A$ be a $n \times n$ complex unitary matrix. I want to show that the eigenvalues $\lambda$ of the matrix $A+A^{\star}$ are real numbers that satisfy the relation $-2 \leq \lambda \leq 2$.

I have looked up the definitions and I read that a unitary matrix is a square matrix for which $AA^{+}=I$.

(The transpose matrix of $A^{\star}$ is symbolized with $A^{+}$.)

($A^{\star}$: complex conjugate)In order to show that the eigenvalues $\lambda$ of the matrix $A+A^{\star}$ are real numbers and satisfy that $-2 \leq \lambda \leq 2$, do we maybe have to find the minimal polynomial of the matrix $A+A^{\star}$ ? If so, how? Is there a relation? Or do we have to do it somehow else? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey evinda!

Suppose we pick $A=\begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\ 1&0\end{pmatrix}$.
Then aren't the eigenvalues of $A+A^*$ imaginary? (Worried)

Can it be that $A+A^+$ was intended?

To find an upper magnitude of 2, did you consider that $\|A\mathbf x\| = \|\mathbf x\|$, which is a property of a unitary matrix? (Wondering)
 
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
964
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K