MHB Finding Matrix D Without Calculating P Inverse: Help Appreciated!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tomc612
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Matrix
Click For Summary
To determine the diagonal matrix D without calculating the inverse of matrix P, recognize that the diagonal entries of D are simply the eigenvalues of matrix A. The matrix P, which diagonalizes A, is composed of the eigenvectors of A as its columns. Therefore, by arranging the eigenvalues in the same order as their corresponding eigenvectors in P, D can be constructed directly. This approach eliminates the need for calculating P^-1. Understanding this relationship simplifies the process of finding D significantly.
tomc612
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hi,
got a question I'm stuck on..

Write down a matrix P which will diagonalise A and write down the corresponding
diagonal matrix D, where D = P^-􀀀1AP. You do not have to calculate P^-1


Ive got all the eigenvalues and eigenvectors for A, and thus have the Matrix P, which has a determinant of -12 and thus P^-1 exists.

Question is how to do you determine D without calculating the inverse of P?

Any help appreciated

Tom
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tomc612 said:
Hi,
got a question I'm stuck on..

Write down a matrix P which will diagonalise A and write down the corresponding
diagonal matrix D, where D = P^-􀀀1AP. You do not have to calculate P^-1


Ive got all the eigenvalues and eigenvectors for A, and thus have the Matrix P, which has a determinant of -12 and thus P^-1 exists.

Question is how to do you determine D without calculating the inverse of P?

Any help appreciated

Tom
The entries on the main diagonal of $D$ are the eigenvalues of $A$. All the other entries in $D$ are zeros.

When you wrote down the matrix $P$, its columns were the eigenvectors of $A$ (in some order). When you write the diagonal elements of $D$, you should use the corresponding eigenvalues in the same order.
 
I am surprised that tomc612 would be given a problem like this if he had not already learned everything Opalg said!
 
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 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K