MHB Interval of eigenvalues using Gershgorin circles

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

We have the matrix $$A=\begin{pmatrix}2 & 0.4 & -0.1 & 0.3 \\ 0.3 & 3 & -0.1 & 0.2 \\ 0 & 0.7 & 3 & 1 \\ 0.2 & 0.1 & 0 & 4\end{pmatrix}$$ We get the row Gershgorin circles: $$K_1=\{z\in \mathbb{C} : |z-2|\leq 0.8 \} \\ K_2=\{z\in \mathbb{C} : |z-3|\leq 0.6 \} \\ K_3=\{z\in \mathbb{C} : |z-3|\leq 1.7 \} \\ K_4=\{z\in \mathbb{C} : |z-4|\leq 0.3 \} $$ and the column Gershgorin circles: $$K_1'=\{z\in \mathbb{C} : |z-2|\leq 0.5 \} \\ K_2'=\{z\in \mathbb{C} : |z-3|\leq 1.2 \} \\ K_3'=\{z\in \mathbb{C} : |z-3|\leq 0.2 \} \\ K_4'=\{z\in \mathbb{C} : |z-4|\leq 1.5 \} $$

To get the intervals of the eigenvalues, we have to look at the union of all row circles and the union of all column circles, or not?

Then at the result we have to take the intersection, or not?

Till now I have seen only examples where $A=A^T$ and so the row and column circles are the same, and so I am confused here.

(Wondering)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
According to the wiki article, the way I see it, ALL the eigenvalues of $A$ must lie in
$$\displaystyle\cup_{i=1}^4K_i,$$
as you've defined them, AND ALL the eigenvalues of $A$ must lie in
$$\displaystyle\cup_{i=1}^4K_i'.$$
Therefore, all the eigenvalues of $A$ must lie in
$$\displaystyle\left(\cup_{i=1}^4K_i\right)\cap\left(\cup_{i=1}^4K_i'\right).$$
I don't think you can say that the eigenvalues must lie in
$$\cup_{i=1}^4(K_i\cap K_i'),$$
which is what I would be tempted to think, unless you can show those are equivalent.
 
Hey mathmari!

I have just read the wiki article about Gershgorin circles.
As I understand it, and this is verifiable from the proofs that are given in the article:
  • All eigenvalues are in the union of all row circles.
  • All eigenvalues are in the union of all column circles.
  • If the row circles can be divided into disjoint unions, then each disjoint union contains exactly as many eigenvalues as there are circles in it.
    Same for the column circles.
(Cool)

In this case there is a row circle that overlaps all other row circles.
And there is also a column circle that overlaps all others.
So I think the only thing we can say, is that all eigenvalues are in the intersection of the row-union and the column-union. (Thinking)
 
So this is what it looks like:
\begin{tikzpicture}
\newcommand{\coordinates}{
\draw[help lines] (0,-2) grid (6,2);
\draw[-stealth] (0,0) -- (6.4,0) node[label=Re]{};
\draw[stealth-stealth] (0,-2.3) -- (0,2.3) node[label=right:Im]{};
\draw[fill] foreach \i in {1,...,6} { (\i,0) node[yshift=-2cm,label=below:\i]{} };
\draw foreach \i in {-2,...,2} { (0,\i) node[label=left:\i]{} };
}

\newcommand{\rowcircles}{
(2,0) circle (0.8)
(3,0) circle (0.6)
circle (1.7)
(4,0) circle (0.3)
}
\newcommand{\colcircles}{
(2,0) circle (0.5)
(3,0) circle (1.2)
circle (0.2)
(4,0) circle (1.5)
}

\begin{scope}
\coordinates
\filldraw[red, fill opacity=.3] \rowcircles node[above left] at (2.3,1.4) {row circles};
\filldraw[blue, fill opacity=.3] \colcircles node[above right] at (4,1.4) {column circles};
\fill
(2,0) circle (1pt)
(3,0) circle (1pt)
(4,0) circle (1pt);
\end{scope}

\begin{scope}[xshift=8cm]
\coordinates
\clip\rowcircles;
\path[fill=red!50!blue, fill opacity=.6] \colcircles;
\draw (1.8617,0) circle (2pt)
(4.0368,0) circle (2pt)
(3.0508,0.2407) circle (2pt)
(3.0508,-0.2407) circle (2pt);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
The small circles on the right are the actual eigenvalues. (Malthe)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
2
Replies
56
Views
10K
Replies
125
Views
19K
Back
Top