MHB Is this operator diagonalizable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jack3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator
Jack3
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Let M be the space of all 2 × 2 complex matrices,
satisfying 〖(X)bar〗^t = -X (skew-hermitian).
Consider M as a vector space over R.
Define a bilinear form B on M by B(X,Y) = -tr(XY)

(1) Show that B takes real values, is symmetric and positive definite.

(2) For any A ∈ M , define the operator ad_A: M → M by ad_A(X) = AX – XA.
Show that operator ad_A is diagonalizable.

(3) Let the matrix
A =
( i 1)
(-1 i) .
Compute the eigenvalues of operator ad_A.(For part (2), Maybe we should show there is a basis of M consisting of eigenvectors of ad_A?)Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hint: If $X,Y\in M$ then,

$X=\begin{bmatrix}{x_1i}&{x_2+x_3i}\\{-x_2+x_3i}&{x_4i}\end{bmatrix},\;Y=\begin{bmatrix}{y_1i}&{y_2+y_3i}\\{-y_2+y_3i}&{y_4i}\end{bmatrix}\quad(x_i,y_j\in \mathbb{R})$.

Now, verify: $B(X,Y)=-\mbox{trace }(XY)=\ldots=x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3+x_4y_4$
 
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
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
689
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
3K