How can I find the formula for M^n if M is a diagonalizable matrix?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UrbanXrisis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a formula for M^n where M is a diagonalizable matrix, specifically M = \(\begin{pmatrix} 4 & -1 \\ 2 & 7 \end{pmatrix}\). Participants are exploring the implications of diagonalization and the relationships between M, its diagonal form D, and the matrix S that diagonalizes M.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the diagonalization process, expressing M in terms of S, D, and S^{-1}. There are attempts to derive M^n from these components, with questions about the multiplication of diagonal matrices and how they relate to the original matrix M. Some participants question the validity of certain simplifications and the properties of the matrices involved.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and corrections to each other's reasoning. There is recognition of the need to find the correct form of S and its inverse, as well as clarification on the relationship between the eigenvalues, eigenvectors, and the diagonal matrix D. Some participants have acknowledged progress in understanding, while others continue to seek clarification on specific points.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the properties of the matrices involved, particularly concerning the determinant and invertibility of S. Participants are also grappling with the implications of their calculations and the definitions of eigenvalues and eigenvectors in the context of diagonalization.

UrbanXrisis
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
1
M = \left(\begin{array}{cc}4&-1 \\ 2&7 \end{array}\right)

I need to show M^n as a formula of entries where n>0:

so say M = \left(\begin{array}{cc}4&-1 \\ 2&7 \end{array}\right) is diagonalizable: M = SDS^{-1}

then M^2=S^2 D^2 S^{-2}

and... M^3=S^3 D^3 S^{-3}

I can see from this that D^n = \left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha^n&0 \\ 0&\beta^2 \end{array}\right) assuming \alpha= \lambda_1 and that \beta= \lambda_2

\alpha= 5 and \beta= 6

D^n = \left(\begin{array}{cc}5^n&0 \\ 0&6^n \end{array}\right)

so to find S...

\left(\begin{array}{cc}4-\alpha&-1 \\ 2&7-\beta \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&-1 \\ 2&2 \end{array}\right)

v_1= \left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ -1 \end{array}\right)

\left(\begin{array}{cc}2&1 \\ 2&1 \end{array}\right)

v_2= \left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ -2 \end{array}\right)

S = \left(\begin{array}{cc}1&1 \\-1&-2 \end{array}\right)

det(S)=-1

S^{-1} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&-1 \\1&2 \end{array}\right)

this is where I am stuck, i don't know how to get S^n or S^-n

any ideas?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
UrbanXrisis said:
then M^2=S^2 D^2 S^{-2}

and... M^3=S^3 D^3 S^{-3}
Not true.
M = SDS^-1.
MM = SDS^-1SDS^-1
How does this simplify?
 
AKG helped me out and I realized that M^n=S D^n S^{-1}

what i don't understand now is now a diagonal matrix can be multiplied with other matricies to get a matrix with non-zero numbers?

D^n = \left(\begin{array}{cc}5^n&0 \\ 0&6^n \end{array}\right)

so D multiplied by some other matrix will always be \left(\begin{array}{cc}a&0 \\ 0&b \end{array}\right)

so how does this produce the original matrix M = \left(\begin{array}{cc}4&-1 \\ 2&7 \end{array}\right)?
 
Multiply D with the matrix full of 1's. It has no zeroes. Anyways, we want to know how to find an invertible matrix S such that M = SDS-1. You were on the right track to finding S in that other thread.
 
UrbanXrisis said:
AKG helped me out and I realized that M^n=S D^n S^{-1}

what i don't understand now is now a diagonal matrix can be multiplied with other matricies to get a matrix with non-zero numbers?

D^n = \left(\begin{array}{cc}5^n&0 \\ 0&6^n \end{array}\right)

so D multiplied by some other matrix will always be \left(\begin{array}{cc}a&0 \\ 0&b \end{array}\right)
No, that's not true! Did you actually try it?

so how does this produce the original matrix M = \left(\begin{array}{cc}4&-1 \\ 2&7 \end{array}\right)?
How did you get D? Wasn't it D= SMS-1? So then M= S-1DS.

You saw, of course, that the numbers on the diagonal of D are the eigenvalues of M. A standard way of finding S is to use the corresponding eigenvectors as columns of S.
 
Lets give it a try:

M = \left(\begin{array}{cc}4&-1 \\ 2&7 \end{array}\right)

M^n=S D^n S^{-1}

Find the eigenvalues:
\left(\begin{array}{cc}4-\lambda&-1 \\ 2&7-\lambda \end{array}\right)

\lambda_1=5, \lambda_2=6

This mean:

D = \left(\begin{array}{cc}5&0 \\ 0&6 \end{array}\right)

D^n = \left(\begin{array}{cc}5^n&0 \\ 0&6^n \end{array}\right)

To find the eigenvectors:
\left(\begin{array}{cc}4-\lambda_1&-1 \\ 2&7-\lambda _1 \end{array}\right)

\left(\begin{array}{cc}4-5&-1 \\ 2&7-5 \end{array}\right)

\left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&-1 \\ 2&2 \end{array}\right)

Solving the matrix:
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}-1&-1&0\\ 2&2 &0 \end{array}\right)

v_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\-1 \end{array}\right)

\left(\begin{array}{cc}4-\lambda_2&-1 \\ 2&7-\lambda_2 \end{array}\right)

\left(\begin{array}{cc}4-6&-1 \\ 2&7-6 \end{array}\right)

\left(\begin{array}{cc}-2&-1 \\ 2&1 \end{array}\right)

Solving the matrix:
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}-2&-1&0\\ 2&1 &0 \end{array}\right)

v_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\-2 \end{array}\right)

The eigenspace is then:
S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&1 \\ -1&-2 \end{array}\right)

det\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&1 \\ -1&-2 \end{array}\right)=-1

S^{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&-1 \\ 1&2 \end{array}\right)

So this means that:
M= \left(\begin{array}{cc}1&1 \\ -1&-2 \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}5&0 \\ 0&6 \end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&-1 \\ 1&2 \end{array}\right)

M^n= \left(\begin{array}{cc}1&1 \\ -1&-2 \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}5^n&0 \\ 0&6^n \end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&-1 \\ 1&2 \end{array}\right)

When I solve this out.. I get:

M^n= \left(\begin{array}{cc}-5^n+6^n&-5^n+2(6^n) \\ 5^n-2(6^n)&5^n-4(6^n) \end{array}\right)

When I sub in n=1, I do not get back the original matrix... could someone help?
 
Last edited:
UrbanXrisis said:
Solving the matrix:
\left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&-1&0\\ 2&2 &0 \end{array}\right)
You don't solve a matrix, you solve an equation, and the equation you want to solve is:

\left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&-1\\ 2&2 \end{array}\right)v_1 = \left (\begin{array}{c}0\\0\end{array}\right)

for v1, which coincidentally you have:
v_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\-1 \end{array}\right)
Next
Solving the matrix:
\left(\begin{array}{cc}-2&-1&0\\ 2&1 &0 \end{array}\right)
v_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\-2 \end{array}\right)
Again, you're solving the equation:

\left(\begin{array}{cc}-2&-1\\ 2&1 \end{array}\right)v_2 = \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\0\end{array}\right )

which you have already done.
The eigenspace is then:
S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&-1 \\ 2&-2 \end{array}\right)
Just as a matrix is not something you solve, a matrix is not an eigenspace either. Moreover, it's not clear as to how you got this matrix. You're supposed to let S be the matrix whose rows (or columns, I can't remember) are the eigenvectors you found. You had vectors (1 -1)T and (1 -2)T, so I don't know where you're getting this S from.
det\left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&-1 \\ 2&2 \end{array}\right)=-1
First of all, this matrix you're finding the determinat of is not the S you wrote down just a few lines above, and moreover it still isn't a matrix whose rows/columns are eigenvectors. It's yet another unexplained matrix. Thirdly, the determinant of that matrix there isn't -1, it's 0. Just look at the columns, they're the exact same, so the columns are clearly linearly dependent, so the determinant is 0. Of course, a very simply computation: (-1)(2) - (-1)(2) = 0 shows this as well. The original matrix for S that you had also has determinant 0, since its second row is just 2x the first, so they rows are dependent, hence determinant is 0. Again, a computation shows this: 1(-2) - (2)(-1) = 0.
S^{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&1 \\ -2&2 \end{array}\right)
No matter which of the two matrices you're talking about, this is wrong since neither of those matrices are invertible (both have det 0). And I have no idea how you came up with this answer. I mean, if you did the thing you learned from high school: Take S, switch the things in positions a and d, replace c and d with their negatives, then divide the whole thing by det(S) [which you thought to be -1], you still wouldn't get what you have above, no matter which of the two matrices were taken to be S.
 
Okay, it looks as though you've edited your post. Now everything's right up to the point where you find S-1 (well, you still don't solve matrices or call them eigenspaces, but anyways...). It looks like all you've done is taken S and divided by det(S) [which is indeed -1].
 
sorry... still not so good with LaTeX.
 
  • #10
thanks for catching that mistake and then help AKG, I've got it figured out!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K