Proving eigenvalues of a 2 x 2 square matrix

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between eigenvalues and the invertibility of the matrix (A - 2I_2). It emphasizes that if (A - 2I_2) does not have an inverse, it indicates that the determinant is zero, which is a condition for eigenvalues. The definition of eigenvalues is clarified, stating that for a nonzero vector x, the equation (A - λI)x = 0 must hold true, leading to the conclusion that A - λI cannot be invertible. The conversation also touches on the importance of specifying that the vector involved is nonzero. Overall, the participants clarify misconceptions about eigenvalues and matrix inverses.
member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this,
1684972106439.png

Does someone please know why the equation highlighted not be true if ##(A - 2I_2)## dose not have an inverse?

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChiralSuperfields said:
Homework Statement: Please see below
Relevant Equations: Please see below

For this,
View attachment 327021
Does someone please know why the equation highlighted not be true if ##(A - 2I_2)## dose not have an inverse?

Many thanks!
You “take” the matrix to the other side of the equation by multiplying from the left each side of the equation by the inverse. If the inverse does not exist, one cannot multiply by it.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker and member 731016
Eigenvalues ##\lambda## for a matrix ##A##are defined to satisfy ##Det(A-\lambda I)=0##. This comes from ##Ax=\lambda x ##, so that ##(A-\lambda I )x=0 ##.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
@ChiralSuperfields, what textbook are you getting this stuff from? Your thread here seems related to two of you recent threads. As I mentioned before, finding eigenvalues of a matrix has nothing to do with finding the inverse of a matrix.

The definition of an eigenvalue (usually represented by ##\lambda##) is that for some specific vector ##\vec x##, ##A\vec x = \lambda \vec x##, or equivalently, ##(A - \lambda I)\vec x = \vec 0##. If we restrict ##\vec x## to nonzero vectors, it must be true that ##|A - \lambda I| = 0##. That means that ##A - \lambda I## does not have an inverse.

One other thing. Near the bottom of the attachment you posted it says
But by definition,
##\begin{bmatrix}x \\ y \end{bmatrix} \ne \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}##

Unless it was specifically stated that this vector was nonzero somewhere above what you posted in the attachment, the line I quoted makes no sense.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016 and Steve4Physics
Mark44 said:
@ChiralSuperfields, what textbook are you getting this stuff from? Your thread here seems related to two of you recent threads. As I mentioned before, finding eigenvalues of a matrix has nothing to do with finding the inverse of a matrix.

The definition of an eigenvalue (usually represented by ##\lambda##) is that for some specific vector ##\vec x##, ##A\vec x = \lambda \vec x##, or equivalently, ##(A - \lambda I)\vec x = \vec 0##. If we restrict ##\vec x## to nonzero vectors, it must be true that ##|A - \lambda I| = 0##. That means that ##A - \lambda I## does not have an inverse.

One other thing. Near the bottom of the attachment you posted it says

Unless it was specifically stated that this vector was nonzero somewhere above what you posted in the attachment, the line I quoted makes no sense.
Thank you for your replies @Frabjous , @WWGD , and @Mark44!

I understand now :) @Mark44, this is not from a textbook but course notes.

Many thanks!
 
ChiralSuperfields said:
this is not from a textbook but course notes.
It's hard to tell where they're going with these notes.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K