Linear Algebra Question: Diagonalizability of a Matrix with Unknown Values

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The matrix A = [[4, 0, 6], [2, a, 3], [-1, 0, -1]] is not diagonalizable for the values a = 1 and a = 2. A matrix is diagonalizable if it has three independent eigenvectors, which occurs when it has three distinct eigenvalues. In the cases where a equals 1 or 2, the matrix has a multiplicity of eigenvalues but lacks the requisite number of independent eigenvectors, confirming its non-diagonalizability. For any other value of a, the matrix possesses three distinct eigenvalues and is therefore diagonalizable.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of eigenvalues and eigenvectors
  • Familiarity with matrix diagonalization concepts
  • Knowledge of polynomial expansion and factorization
  • Basic skills in linear algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of eigenvalues and eigenvectors in depth
  • Learn about the Jordan form for matrices with repeated eigenvalues
  • Explore the implications of matrix multiplicity on diagonalizability
  • Investigate the process of finding eigenvectors for matrices with complex eigenvalues
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying linear algebra, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts of matrix diagonalization and eigenvalue analysis.

tas3113
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
So the question is:

For which values of a is the following matrix not diagonalizable?

... 4 0 6
A = ( 2 a 3 )
...-1 0 -1

So my first question is when is a matrix diagonalizable or not diafonalizable.

The way I approached the question was to go about finding the eigenvalues and eigenvectors.

p(h) = (4-h)(a-h)(-1-h)-(-1)(a-h)(6)

Distributing this out gets pretty messy. So it doesn't seem like this is the right approach.

Can someone help me out please? How do I go about solving this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's a good start, though I disagree that it is messy to simplify - there is a common factor of a-h in there, and no other a's, thus making it very easy to simplify (and in particular it is clear that a is always an eigen-value, but you could see that by inspecting the original matrix).
 
A 3 by 3 matrix is diagonalizable if and only if it has three independent eigenvectors.

If it has 3 distinct eigenvalues, then, of course, it has three independent eigenvectors (eigenvectors corresponding to distinct eigenvalues are always independent) and so is diagonalizable. But in the case that there are not three distinct eigenvalues you need to check the eigenvectors.

(Expanding the determinant
\left|\begin{array}{ccc}4-\lambda & 0 & 6 \\ 2 & a-\lambda & 3 \\ -1 & 0 & -1-\lambda\end{array}\right|
by the middle column gives the equation a particularly simple form.)
 
so I pulled out the (a-h) and ended up with:

(a-h)(h-1)(h-2)

so I know two eigenvalues are 1 and 2.

so is it not diagonalizable if a = 1 or 2?
 
It may or may not be: the identity matrix has 1 eigenvalue but is diagonal(izable). But Halls already told you what to do. You need to find how many eigenvectors there are with eigenvalues 1 and 2 (when a=1 and 2).
 
so when I plug 1 in for a I get the eigenvalues 1 and 2 with eigenvectors (0,1,0) and (3,3,-1). 1 has a multiplicity of 2 but only one eigenvector.

when I plug 2 in for a I get the eigenvalues 1 and 2 with eigenvectors (2,-1,-1) and (0,1,0). 2 has a multiplicity of 2 but only one eigenvector.

so there are three different eigenvectors. I'm still lost as to how this all connects though. So it's not diagonalizable for a = 1 and 2? are that the only cases?
 
When a=1 you say there are not 3 eigenvectors - so it's not diagonalizable.

When a=2 you also say there are not three eigenvectors - so it's not diagonalizable.

When a is neither 1 nor 2 then there are 3 distinct eigenvalues and hence 3 distinct eigenvectors hence it is diagonalizable.

Then you say that there are three eigenvectors - but that is for a different a, hence a different matrix in each case.
 
ok. thank you!
 
my leacturer said tha I can`t multiply matrixies with different sizes,such as (2*2)(4*5) than she gave us the very complicated process! can you make it shorter for me
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K