Lower triangular matrix eigenvectors problem

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a given lower triangular matrix. The initial calculations incorrectly identified one eigenvalue as positive when it should have been negative. The participant clarifies that the eigenvector for the first eigenvalue is indeed supposed to be (c/3 - 1, 4/3). After some back-and-forth, they realize their mistake in matrix multiplication and confirm the correct relationship between the eigenvalues and eigenvectors. The participant expresses gratitude for the assistance and acknowledges their resolution of the problem.
eherrtelle59
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Ok, this is starting to come back to me, but I'm stuck again

Homework Statement




M=\begin{bmatrix}
(1-\frac{4}{3}) & 0 \\
-\frac{c}{3} & -c \\
\end{bmatrix}


Find eigenvectors and eigenvalues.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Eigenvalues are λ_1= (1-\frac{4}{3})>0 and λ_2=-c>0

Eigenvector for λ_2 is <0 1>
For λ_1, I should get &lt;(\frac{c}{3}-1) (\frac{4}{3})&gt;

However, I end up with (without writing out the matrix again, just giving the equation mind you)

-c*e_2 = e_1 - \frac{4}{3}*e_1 +\frac{c}{3}*e_1

This is -c*e_2 = (1-c)*e_1which gets an eigenvector of something like <(1-c) c>

Anyone see my error? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The clearly negative eigenvalue being allegedly positive is the first thing that struck me as odd, but not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things

I don't understand what you did to get that equation (the left hand side looks like Me2, and the right hand side is completely unclear to me where it came from, but the fact that you have a scaling of e1= a scaling of e2 seems pretty suspicious), or what you are claiming the eigenvector for the first eigenvalue is since it only has one entry as written - is it supposed to be ( (c/3-1), 4/3)?
 
"The clearly negative eigenvalue being allegedly positive is the first thing that struck me as odd, but not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things"

That's a typo on my part. λ_2 should be negative i.e. -c<0

"is it supposed to be ( (c/3-1), 4/3)?"

Yes

To show explicitly what I did, using the standard eigenvector equation with v_i instead of e_i


\begin{bmatrix}
(1-(4/3)c) & 0 \\
-c/3 & -c \\
\end{bmatrix} *\begin{bmatrix}
v_1 \\
v_2 \\
\end{bmatrix}

= \begin{bmatrix}
(1-4c/3)*v_1 \\
(1-4c/3)*v_1\\
\end{bmatrix}

When you multiply this matrices (as sort of shown...latex skills withstanding) then you get the equation I've written previously.
 
"but the fact that you have a scaling of e1= a scaling of e2 seems pretty suspicious"

When finding eigenvectors I always get equations like this.
 
I'm sorry everyone, that should be multiply by

\begin{pmatrix}
(1-4c/3)v_1\\
(1-4c/3)v_2\\
\end{pmatrix}
which does indeed give the right answer,

(c/3)*v_1 = (c/3 -1)*v_2

Sorry for wasting everyone's time, I've finally got it now. Thank you!
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K