MHB Set of eigenvectors is linearly independent

Click For Summary
Eigenvectors corresponding to different eigenvalues are always linearly independent, which applies to any set of such eigenvectors. The discussion clarifies that if any two eigenvectors in a set are independent, then all vectors in that set are also independent. This principle can be proven by demonstrating that a linear combination of independent vectors remains independent of any other vector. The conversation emphasizes the consistency of linear independence across multiple eigenvectors. Overall, the linear independence of eigenvectors is a fundamental property in linear algebra.
Fermat1
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
I know eigenvectors corresponding to different eigenvalues are linearly independent but what about a set ${e_{1},...,e_{n}}$ of eigenvectors corresponding to different eigenvalues?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand your question because I don't see how the two parts of your question are different.

When you say
Fermat said:
I know eigenvectors corresponding to different eigenvalues are linearly independent
Do you mean that two eigenvectors corresponding to two different eigenvalues
but what about a set ${e_{1},...,e_{n}}$ of eigenvectors corresponding to different eigenvalues?
but asking, "what if there are more than two?". One can show generally, "if, in a set of vectors, any two are independent (au+ bv= 0 only if a= b= 0 which is the same as saying that b is NOT a multiple of a and vice-versa) then all the vectors are independent."
One can prove that by first proving 'if u_1, u_2, ... u_n are each independent of v, then so is a_1u_1+ a_2u_2+ ...+ a_nu_n is independent of v for any numbers a_1, a_2, ..., a_n.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K