Proving a linear transform is diagonalizable

  • Thread starter Thread starter dargar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linear Transform
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the diagonalizability of the derivative map, which is a linear transformation acting on the vector space of real polynomials of degree at most n. Participants are exploring the properties of eigenvalues and eigenvectors in the context of this transformation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to connect the concept of eigenvalues to the derivative map but expresses uncertainty about their invariance under linear transformations. Other participants seek clarification on the definitions and properties related to diagonalizability and eigenvalues.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively questioning assumptions and definitions related to diagonalizability. Some guidance has been offered regarding the properties of matrices and eigenvalues, with suggestions to explore specific cases to build understanding.

Contextual Notes

There is confusion regarding the relationship between vector spaces and matrices, as well as the definitions of diagonalizability. The discussion includes references to specific cases (n=0, n=1, n=2) as potential starting points for exploration.

dargar
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let U be the R-vector space consisting of all polynomials of degree at most n with
coefficients that are real.

The Derivative Map
F : U [tex]\rightarrow[/tex] U
f(x) [tex]\rightarrow[/tex] f'(x)

Is the derivative function F diagonalizable?


The Attempt at a Solution



My instinct says yes but I'm not too sure why. Am I right in saying that eigenvalues are invariant after a linear transform. I'm pretty sure that before the function is applied you can have a matrix that has n+1 distinct eignenvalues but not sure if this is the right lines or if it is how to set about writing it down in a proof format.

Any help would be great thanks !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dargar said:
Am I right in saying that eigenvalues are invariant after a linear transform.
Can you be more precise in what you mean? Eigenvalues of what? What linear transform?
 
The linear transform is differentiation function.

The eigenvalues I'm not so sure of , the main reason I say it is because in my notes it seems to be the only thing remotely to do with this question.

In the following deffinitions I have , I assume he means A is the vector space you start with

Let A be an (nxn) matrix, A is diagonalisable by similarity transform if and only if there is a basis for R^n consisting of entirely eigenvectors for A.

and

If A is diagonisible then

the sum of the distinct eigenvalues for dimension of the eigenspace = n

Oh and I also know that eigenvalues are similarity invariant but their eigenvector aren't (altho they have a 1 to 1 correspondance after the function is applied)

Sorry I'm pretty confused at how to go about this, so I'm sorry if it doesn't make sense
 
dargar said:
In the following deffinitions I have , I assume he means A is the vector space you start with

Let A be an (nxn) matrix, A is diagonalisable by similarity transform if and only if there is a basis for R^n consisting of entirely eigenvectors for A.
No, he meant what he said: A is an nxn matrix. Diagonalizability is not a property of vector spaces; it is a property of matrices (and of linear transformations).

(This n, of course, does not necessarily have anything to do with the n in your original problem)


the sum of the distinct eigenvalues for dimension of the eigenspace = n
This doesn't make sense. I know the theorem you're trying to state, but the idea you have in your head doesn't make sense.

If a matrix is diagonalizable, then:

It have a set of (distinct) eigenvalues.
Each of those eigenvalues has a corresponding eigenspace.
Each of those eigenspaces has a dimension.
The sum of all of those dimensions is n.



Sorry I'm pretty confused at how to go about this
It's often useful to start with special cases. Try working through the n=0 case. Then the n=1 case. Mabe even the n=2 case. Only then worry about the general case.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K