Nilpotent / Diagonalizable matrices

  • Thread starter Thread starter alaa_137
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrices
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of an nxn matrix A with rank 1, specifically whether it can be classified as nilpotent or diagonalizable. Participants are exploring the implications of these classifications and the relationship between rank, eigenvalues, and Jordan canonical forms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of A being non-diagonalizable and question the validity of the original poster's reasoning regarding determinants and nilpotency. There is exploration of Jordan canonical forms and their relation to matrices of rank 1.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants questioning assumptions and clarifying concepts related to eigenvalues and Jordan forms. Some guidance has been offered regarding the characteristics of matrices with rank 1, but no consensus has been reached on the proof itself.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of the problem statement, specifically the conditions of rank and matrix size. There is an acknowledgment of the need to consider Jordan forms in the context of the proof.

alaa_137
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hey guys
I hope I'm in the right place...
I have this question I've been trying to solve for too long:

Let A be an nxn matrix, rankA=1 , and n>1 .
Prove that A is either nilpotent or diagonalizable.


My best attempt was:
if A is not diagonalizable then det(A)=0 then there is a k>0 such that A^k = 0 then A is nilpotent.

But I'm quite sure that's not good...

Anyone can help?

Thanks a lot
 
Physics news on Phys.org
alaa_137 said:
if A is not diagonalizable then det(A)=0 then there is a k>0 such that A^k = 0 then A is nilpotent.

This is incorrect. This should be clear since you did not use the rank=1 property.

Also, why should a non-diagonalizable matrix have det(A)=0??
And more crucial, why should a matrix with det(A)=0 have A^k=0 for a k?

What does diagonalizable mean?? What does it say about the eigenvectors??

Do you know anything about Jordan canonical forms??
 
alright so everything i said is wrong i guess.
i just tried to get to SOMEthing... because i came to a dead end...
and yes i know about Jordan forms...
How can I use that for the proof?
 
Well, try to write down the Jordan canonical forms of a matrix with rank 1. Can you find some eigenvalues of such a matrix?
 
if rank = 1 then all eigenvalues are zero, right ?
 
alaa_137 said:
if rank = 1 then all eigenvalues are zero, right ?

What is the rank of A = \pmatrix{1&0\\0&0}? What are its eigenvalues?

RGV
 
t1=1 , t2=0
 
alaa_137 said:
t1=1 , t2=0

So this is a counterexample to your post 5, right?
 
yeah, and its jordan form is just as the original matrix.
I tried another rank 1 matrix to see if i come across a rule for jordan forms for rank 1 matrices... but i didn't find anything special...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K