Jordan Form- Please confirm my solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter talolard
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of an nxn matrix A over a field F, specifically addressing the equation A^{2009} + A^{2007} = 0 and its implications for the diagonalizability of A. Participants explore the conditions under which A can be diagonalizable based on the eigenvalues derived from this equation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the implications of the equation A^{2009} + A^{2007} = 0, discussing the possibility of A being nilpotent or having eigenvalues that lead to diagonalizability. There is a focus on the existence of the square root of -1 in the field and its impact on the diagonalizability of A.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and questioning each other's reasoning. Some participants suggest that the original poster may be overlooking certain possibilities regarding the product of matrices, while others clarify the conditions under which A can be considered diagonalizable.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the definitions and properties of nilpotent matrices versus diagonalizable matrices, as well as the implications of the field's characteristics on the eigenvalues of A.

talolard
Messages
119
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


edit, sorry its not jordan form, I misplaced words.
Hey,
Let A be an nxn matrix over some field F. [tex]A \neg 0[/tex] and [tex]A^{2009}+A^{2007}=0[/tex]. Is a diagnizable?

Attempt at solution
we can notice that [tex]A^{2009}+A^{2007}=0 \iff A^{2007}(A^2+I)=0 \iff A^{2007}=0 or A^2=-I[/tex]
If [tex]A^2 = -I[/tex] then a is a diagnol matrix with eigenvalues i and -i (i is defined as the sqaure root of -1 in the field. if the field does not have sucha number then A is not diagnizable).
If [/tex] A^2 \neq -I [/tex] then[tex]A^{2007}=0[/tex] but the A is nillpotent and so has less the n eigenvectors, so A is not diagnizable. q.e.d.
Is this correct?
Thanks
Tal

Homework Statement


Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Homework Statement


Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You are omitting a possibility. For square matrices A and B, it is possible for AB = 0 where neither A nor B is the 0 matrix.

Here's a simple example.
[tex]\left[ <br /> \begin{array}{c c} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right]<br /> \left[ <br /> \begin{array}{c c} 0 & 2 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] = <br /> \left[ <br /> \begin{array}{c c} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right][/tex]
 
Hi Mark,
thanks for your input. I think I'm missing your point.
As I see it, I am only talking about AA, and not Ab, two different matrices. if B= A^2006 abnd AB=-0 tehn AB=A*A*A&2006=A^2007=0 which still leaves A nilpotent.
If that is not the case then we need A^2=-I which still means that A is diagnozable iff sqrt(-1) exists in the field.
What am I missing?
Thanks
Tal
 
You are talking about two different matrices: A2007 and A2 + I. You said that since A2007(A2 + I) = 0, then it must be that A2700 = 0 or A2 + I = 0.

What I said was that it is possible for the product of two matrices to be zero, where neither matrix is the zero matrix.

It is true that if A = 0 or B = 0, then AB = 0, but the converse is not necessarily true, as my example shows.
 
Ok, here's an improvment:
Assume A is diagnizable. Let v be an eigenvector of A with an eigenvalue, c, that is not 0. then we have
[tex](A^{2009}+A^{2007})\vec(v) =A^{2009}\vec(v) + A^{2007}\vec(v) = c^{2009}\vec(v) + c^{2007}\vec(v)=0 \iff c=i or c=-i[/tex]
If A is a 2x2 matrix over a field where i exists then the matrix is diagnizable. otherwise it i not.
if RkA> 3 then for A to be diagnizable it would need other eigenvalues but none would atisfy the condition.
Is that correct?
Thanks
Tal
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K