Why Do Rank 1 Matrices Have Eigenvalues 0 and Trace?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Rank 1 matrices have eigenvalues of 0 and a trace equal to the nonzero eigenvalue. A rank 1 matrix can be expressed as the outer product of two nonzero vectors, A = xy^T. The eigenvalue equation leads to the conclusion that the only nonzero eigenvalue, if it exists, is equal to the trace of the matrix, which is the sum of the products of corresponding elements of the vectors x and y. This relationship holds true regardless of the distinctness of eigenvalues, as demonstrated by the example matrix A = [[1, 1], [-1, -1]], which has a trace of 0 and a singular eigenvalue.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear algebra concepts, specifically eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
  • Familiarity with matrix operations, including the outer product.
  • Knowledge of the properties of rank and singular matrices.
  • Basic understanding of the trace of a matrix and its significance.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of eigenvalues and eigenvectors in depth.
  • Learn about the implications of matrix rank on eigenvalue behavior.
  • Explore the concept of matrix trace and its applications in linear transformations.
  • Investigate the relationship between matrix rank and singularity in various contexts.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, data scientists, and students studying linear algebra, particularly those interested in eigenvalue theory and matrix analysis.

brownman
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
How come a square matrix has eigenvalues of 0 and the trace of the matrix?
Is there any other proof other than just solving det(A-λI)=0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I might argue something like the following: By row operations, a rank 1 matrix may be reduced to a matrix with only the first row being nonzero. The eigenvectors of such a matrix may be chosen to be the ordinary Euclidian basis, in which the eigenvalues become zero's and the 11-component of this reduced matrix. As row operations are invertible, the trace is unchanged, and thus this nonzero eigenvalue equals the trace of the original matrix.

Afterthought: But that is probably erroneous, because even though the row operations are indeed invertible, they do not generally preserve the trace. So the last part of my argument fails.

A better argument seems to be the following: For a rank k matrix there exists a basis in which k of its columns are nonzero, the other ones being zero. The transformation between bases may be chosen to be orthogonal, thus preserving the trace.
 
Last edited:
We assume ##A## is an ##n \times n## rank one matrix. If ##n > 1##, any rank one matrix is singular. Therefore ##\lambda = 0## is an eigenvalue: for an eigenvector, just take any nonzero ##v## such that ##Av = 0##.

So let's see if there are any nonzero eigenvalues.

If ##A## is a rank one matrix, then all of its columns are scalar multiples of each other. Thus we may write ##A = xy^T## where ##x## and ##y## are nonzero ##n \times 1## vectors.

If ##\lambda## is an eigenvalue of ##A##, then there is a nonzero vector ##v## such that ##Av = \lambda v##. This means that ##(xy^T)v = \lambda v##. By associativity, we may rewrite the left hand side as ##x(y^T v) = \lambda v##.

Note that ##y^T v## is a scalar, and of course ##\lambda## is also a scalar. If we assume ##\lambda \neq 0##, then this means that ##v## is a scalar multiple of ##x##: specifically, ##v = x(y^T v)/\lambda##.

Therefore ##x## itself is an eigenvector associated with ##\lambda##, so we have ##x(y^T x) = \lambda x##, or equivalently, ##x(\lambda - y^T x) = 0##. As ##x## is nonzero, this forces ##\lambda = y^T x##.

All that remains is to recognize that ##y^T x = \sum_{n = 1}^{N} x_n y_n## is the trace of ##A = xy^T##.
 
By the way, note that this does not necessarily mean that ##A## has two distinct eigenvalues. The trace may well be zero, for example
$$A = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
-1 & -1
\end{bmatrix}$$
is a rank one matrix whose only eigenvalue is 0.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K