Eigenspace is a subspace of V - ψ is diagonalizable

  • MHB
  • Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Subspace
In summary, we discussed the relationship between linear operators on a vector space, where they commute, and their respective eigenvalues and eigenvectors. We showed that for a linear operator $\phi$, an eigenvalue $\lambda$ is associated with a corresponding eigenvector $v$, and that $\phi$ is linear and $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue, then $\phi(cv) = c\lambda v = c\phi(v)$ and $\phi(v_1 + v_2) = \phi(v_1) + \phi(v_2)$. We also discussed how this relates to the question of whether $\text{Eig}(\phi, \lambda)$ is invariant under another linear operator $\psi$,
  • #36
mathmari said:
What does this mean?
It means that $v$ is an eigenvector of $\psi$ with eigenvalue $0$ instead of eigenvalue $\lambda$. 😲
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Klaas van Aarsen said:
It means that $v$ is an eigenvector of $\psi$ with eigenvalue $0$ instead of eigenvalue $\lambda$. 😲

For $\phi$ there are $n$ distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_i$'s and the corresponding eigenvectors $v_i$'s.
We want to show that each $v_i$ is also an eigenvector of $\psi$ for some eigenvalue $\mu$.
We shown that
\begin{equation*}\psi \left (\phi (v)\right )=\psi \left (\lambda v\right )\Rightarrow \left (\psi \circ \phi \right )(v)=\lambda \psi \left ( v\right )\Rightarrow \left (\phi\circ\psi \right )(v)=\lambda \psi \left ( v\right ) \Rightarrow \phi \left (\psi(v) \right )=\lambda \psi \left ( v\right )\end{equation*}
If $\psi (v)\ne 0$ then $\psi (v)$ is also an eigenvector for $\lambda$, i.e. $\psi (v)\in \text{Eig}(\phi, \lambda)$.
If $\psi (v)=0$ then the corresponding eigenvalue is $0$.

Is everything correct so far? Or am I thinking in a wrong way for that question? :unsure:
 
  • #38
mathmari said:
If $\psi (v)\ne 0$ then $\psi (v)$ is also an eigenvector for $\lambda$, i.e. $\psi (v)\in \text{Eig}(\phi, \lambda)$.
If $\psi (v)=0$ then the corresponding eigenvalue is $0$.

Is everything correct so far? Or am I thinking in a wrong way for that question?
All correct. (Nod)

Btw, $\psi (v)\in \text{Eig}(\phi, \lambda)$ holds in both cases, i.e. it does not distinguish the first case from the second. 🧐
 
  • #39
Klaas van Aarsen said:
All correct. (Nod)

Btw, $\psi (v)\in \text{Eig}(\phi, \lambda)$ holds in both cases, i.e. it does not distinguish the first case from the second. 🧐

But how does it follow from that that the numbers of distinct eigenvectors is $n$ ?
 
  • #40
mathmari said:
But how does it follow from that that the numbers of distinct eigenvectors is $n$ ?
$\phi$ has $n$ distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ with corresponding eigenvectors $v_i$.
The set of those eigenvectors is consequently an independent set of $n$ vectors.
Therefore the $v_i$ form a basis of $V$. 🤔

The same eigenvectors are also eigenvectors of $\psi$ aren't they?
They just don't necessarily have the same eigenvalues, and there are not necessarily $n$ distinct eigenvalues any more.
That is, $0$ can be an eigenvalue with multiplicity greater than 1.
Either way, they still form a basis of $V$, don't they? 🤠
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Back
Top