If matrix lambda is diagonal with entries 0,1 then lambda squared is lambda

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jameson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lambda Matrix
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if a matrix $\Lambda$ is diagonal with entries 0 and 1, then $\Lambda^2 = \Lambda$, establishing that $\Lambda$ is idempotent. The matrix $\Lambda$ is defined as an $n \times n$ matrix with all non-diagonal entries equal to 0. The proof involves demonstrating that for indices $i \neq j$, the dot product of the corresponding row and column is zero, while for $i = j$, the dot product equals the diagonal entry, confirming the idempotent property. This conclusion is crucial for showing that a real symmetric matrix $A$, decomposed as $A = Q \Lambda Q^{T}$, also satisfies $A^2 = A$.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of idempotent matrices
  • Familiarity with matrix decomposition, specifically the spectral theorem
  • Knowledge of matrix multiplication and dot product definitions
  • Basic concepts of eigenvalues and eigenvectors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of idempotent matrices in linear algebra
  • Learn about the spectral decomposition of symmetric matrices
  • Explore the implications of diagonal matrices in matrix theory
  • Investigate applications of idempotent matrices in statistics and data analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of linear algebra, and researchers working with symmetric matrices and their properties will benefit from this discussion.

Jameson
Insights Author
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,533
Reaction score
13
This is part of a proof I am working on involving idempotent matrices. I believe it is true that for any real symmetric matrix A ($n \times n$ for this), even with repeat eigenvalues, it can be decomposed into the form $A=Q \Lambda Q^{T}$. For the matrix I'm working on, we assume that all eigenvalues of A are 0 or 1.

What I need to show now is that $\Lambda^2=\Lambda$ (which in turn helps me show that $A^2=A$, thus is idempotent). It makes sense intuitively since when doing the row-column multiplications, the only time you would get a non-zero answer is when you have two non-zero elements being multiplied together in the sum, which only occurs when $i=j$. I'm trying to formulate a more rigorous argument for this though.

Just to make sure I'm clear, $\Lambda$ is an $n \times n$ matrix with all non-diagonal entries equal to 0, and diagonal entries equal to 0 or 1.

I know that $ \displaystyle \Lambda^2_{ij} = \sum_{k=1}^{n} \Lambda_{ik}\Lambda_{kj}$

Can I start here to make my argument you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd use the dot product definition of matrix multiplication for this one. First get the $i \ne j$ case out of the way by showing that if $i \ne j$ then the $i$th row and $j$th column are either zero or orthogonal (since $\Lambda$ is diagonal so they can't have nonzero entries in the same dimension) so their dot product is zero. For $i = j$, use the fact that $\Lambda$ is diagonal and contains only entries 0, 1 to argue that the $i$th row and the $j$th column are equal, so their dot product is either 0 if they are zero (if the diagonal entry contains zero) or 1 otherwise (if the diagonal entry contains a 1, i.e. the two vectors are of unit length).
 
Thanks, Bacterius. That was the logic I was thinking of but I didn't state it fully as you did. I think I can use your argument to sufficiently show what I need to. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K