MHB Finding Eigenvalues of Matrix A: Wrong Answer, What Am I Doing Wrong?

Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I have a matrix A and I am looking for it's eigenvalues. No matter what I do, I find that the eigenvalues are 0, 1 and (k+1), while the answer of both the book and Maple is 0 and (k+2). I tried two different technical approaches, both led to the same place.

The matrix is:

\[A=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &1 &k \\ 1 &1 &k \\ 1 &1 &k \end{pmatrix}\]

I have stated with calculating

\[\lambda I-A\]

which is

\[A=\begin{pmatrix} \lambda -1 &-1 &-k \\ -1 &\lambda -1 &-k \\ -1 &-1 &\lambda -k \end{pmatrix}\]

Now I calculate the determinant of this matrix. Whatever I do, I get the wrong answer. Can you please assist ?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Yankel,

I believe you actually want to find $\text{det }(A-\lambda I)=0$ in order to calculate the eigenvalues. What do you get when you try that?
 
Is your determinant [math]\lambda ^3 - \lambda ^2(k + 2)[/math]?

-Dan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankel said:
Hello all,

I have a matrix A and I am looking for it's eigenvalues. No matter what I do, I find that the eigenvalues are 0, 1 and (k+1), while the answer of both the book and Maple is 0 and (k+2). I tried two different technical approaches, both led to the same place.

The matrix is:

\[A=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &1 &k \\ 1 &1 &k \\ 1 &1 &k \end{pmatrix}\]

I have stated with calculating

\[\lambda I-A\]

which is

\[A=\begin{pmatrix} \lambda -1 &-1 &-k \\ -1 &\lambda -1 &-k \\ -1 &-1 &\lambda -k \end{pmatrix}\]

Now I calculate the determinant of this matrix. Whatever I do, I get the wrong answer. Can you please assist ?

Thank you.
Check your calculations again! You should find that $\det(\lambda I - A) = \begin{vmatrix} \lambda -1 &-1 &-k \\ -1 &\lambda -1 &-k \\ -1 &-1 &\lambda -k \end{vmatrix} = \lambda^2(\lambda-k-2).$
 
Last edited:
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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K