Proving eigenvalues of a 2 x 2 square matrix

In summary: They start out referencing eigenvalues, but then it seems to switch gears and talk about inverses. I'm not sure if they're trying to say that an inverse does not exist, or if they're just confused about the terminology.
  • #1
ChiralSuperfields
1,331
142
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
  • #2
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 ChiralSuperfields
  • #3
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 ChiralSuperfields
  • #4
@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 ChiralSuperfields and Steve4Physics
  • #5
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!
 
  • #6
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 ChiralSuperfields

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
868
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
899
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
762
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
676
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
882
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
947
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
320
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
153
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
640
Back
Top