Cayley-Hamilton theorem over C
About points...
We associate a certain number of points with each exercise.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as points for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit the number of points for the exercise in the collection independently, without any effect on "points by default" as represented by the number here.
That being said... How many "default points" should you associate with an exercise upon creation?
As with difficulty, there is no straight forward and generally accepted way.
But as a guideline, we tend to give as many points by default as there are mathematical steps to do in the exercise.
Again, very vague... But the number should kind of represent the "work" required.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as points for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit the number of points for the exercise in the collection independently, without any effect on "points by default" as represented by the number here.
That being said... How many "default points" should you associate with an exercise upon creation?
As with difficulty, there is no straight forward and generally accepted way.
But as a guideline, we tend to give as many points by default as there are mathematical steps to do in the exercise.
Again, very vague... But the number should kind of represent the "work" required.
About difficulty...
We associate a certain difficulty with each exercise.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as difficulty for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit its difficulty in the collection independently, without any effect on the "difficulty by default" here.
Why we use chess pieces? Well... we like chess, we like playing around with \(\LaTeX\)-fonts, we wanted symbols that need less space than six stars in a table-column... But in your layouts, you are of course free to indicate the difficulty of the exercise the way you want.
That being said... How "difficult" is an exercise? It depends on many factors, like what was being taught etc.
In physics exercises, we try to follow this pattern:
Level 1 - One formula (one you would find in a reference book) is enough to solve the exercise. Example exercise
Level 2 - Two formulas are needed, it's possible to compute an "in-between" solution, i.e. no algebraic equation needed. Example exercise
Level 3 - "Chain-computations" like on level 2, but 3+ calculations. Still, no equations, i.e. you are not forced to solve it in an algebraic manner. Example exercise
Level 4 - Exercise needs to be solved by algebraic equations, not possible to calculate numerical "in-between" results. Example exercise
Level 5 -
Level 6 -
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as difficulty for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit its difficulty in the collection independently, without any effect on the "difficulty by default" here.
Why we use chess pieces? Well... we like chess, we like playing around with \(\LaTeX\)-fonts, we wanted symbols that need less space than six stars in a table-column... But in your layouts, you are of course free to indicate the difficulty of the exercise the way you want.
That being said... How "difficult" is an exercise? It depends on many factors, like what was being taught etc.
In physics exercises, we try to follow this pattern:
Level 1 - One formula (one you would find in a reference book) is enough to solve the exercise. Example exercise
Level 2 - Two formulas are needed, it's possible to compute an "in-between" solution, i.e. no algebraic equation needed. Example exercise
Level 3 - "Chain-computations" like on level 2, but 3+ calculations. Still, no equations, i.e. you are not forced to solve it in an algebraic manner. Example exercise
Level 4 - Exercise needs to be solved by algebraic equations, not possible to calculate numerical "in-between" results. Example exercise
Level 5 -
Level 6 -
Question
Solution
Short
Video
\(\LaTeX\)
No explanation / solution video to this exercise has yet been created.
Visit our YouTube-Channel to see solutions to other exercises.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel, like the videos and leave comments!
Visit our YouTube-Channel to see solutions to other exercises.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel, like the videos and leave comments!
Exercise:
abcliste abc Let Ain M_ntimes nK. Then P_AA. abc Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over K and Tin textEndV. Then P_TT. abcliste
Solution:
Proof. We first with Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC. bf Lemma . Suppose Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC is diagonalizable. Then P_AA. Proof. By asption Q^-AQ pmatrix lambda_ & & & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix. for some lambda_...lambda_nin mathbbC the eigenvalues of A. and some Qin textGLnmathbbC. We know that P_Alambda_...P_Alambda_n. Write P_Axc_nx^n+c_n-x^n-+...+c_x+c_. We have Q^-P_AAQc_nQ^-A^nQ+c_n-Q^-A^n-Q+...+c_Q^-AQ+c_Q^-IQ c_nQ^-AQ^n+c_n-Q^-AQ^n-+...+c_Q^-AQ+c_ I c_nLambda^n+c_n-Lambda^n-+...+c_Lambda+c_ I c_n pmatrix lambda_^n & & & ddots & & & lambda_n^n pmatrix+ c_n- pmatrix lambda_^n- & & & ddots & & & lambda_n^n- pmatrix+...+c_ pmatrix lambda_ & & & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix +c_ I pmatrix P_Alambda_ & & & ddots & & & P_Alambda_n pmatrix bf Lemma . Let Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC be any matrix. Then exists a sequence of matrices A_k kin mathbbZ_geq s.t. abcliste abc A_k is diagonalizable. abc lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_kA. i.e. lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_kijAij forall leq ileq n leq jleq n. abcliste Proof. We have seen that every matrix in M_ntimes nmathbbC is trigonalizable Longrightarrow exists Pin textGLn mathbbC s.t. P^-AP pmatrix lambda_ & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix where lambda_...lambda_nin mathbbC are the eigenvalues of A or more precisely the zeroes of P_Ax each of them appearing in the diagonal as many times as its algebraic multiplicity and b_ijin mathbbC leq i jleq n. Note that AP pmatrix lambda_ & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrixP^-. Let Kin mathbbZ_geq . Pick lambda_k...lambda_nkin mathbbC s.t. abcliste abc |lambda_ik-lambda_i| frac k. abc lambda_k...lambda_nk are pairwise distinct. abclisteDefine A_k:P pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^-. Clearly A_k has n distinct eigenvalues namely lambda_k...lambda_nk Longrightarrow A_k is diagonalizable alternatively P_A_kx splits o n distinct linear factors lambda_k-x... lambda_nk-x and forall i we have m_aA_k;lambda_ik We have lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_klim_limitskrightarrow inftyP pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- P lim_limitskrightarrow infty pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- P pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- A forall given matrices PQin M_ntimes nK the map M_ntimes nmathbbClongrightarrow M_ntimes nmathbbC xlongmapsto Ptimes Q is continous. bf Lemma . Cayley-Hamilton holds for every matrix Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC. Proof. By Lemma exists A_k diagonalizable forall k s.t. A_klongrightarrow A. By Lemma P_A_kA_k forall k. But P_A_kA_klongrightarrow P_AA because P_BB deps continously on B every entry in P_BB is a polynomial function of the entries of B. Longrightarrow P_AA. bf Summary. We have proven Cayley-Hamilton over mathbbC. We'll see that this implies the theorem over every field K.
abcliste abc Let Ain M_ntimes nK. Then P_AA. abc Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over K and Tin textEndV. Then P_TT. abcliste
Solution:
Proof. We first with Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC. bf Lemma . Suppose Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC is diagonalizable. Then P_AA. Proof. By asption Q^-AQ pmatrix lambda_ & & & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix. for some lambda_...lambda_nin mathbbC the eigenvalues of A. and some Qin textGLnmathbbC. We know that P_Alambda_...P_Alambda_n. Write P_Axc_nx^n+c_n-x^n-+...+c_x+c_. We have Q^-P_AAQc_nQ^-A^nQ+c_n-Q^-A^n-Q+...+c_Q^-AQ+c_Q^-IQ c_nQ^-AQ^n+c_n-Q^-AQ^n-+...+c_Q^-AQ+c_ I c_nLambda^n+c_n-Lambda^n-+...+c_Lambda+c_ I c_n pmatrix lambda_^n & & & ddots & & & lambda_n^n pmatrix+ c_n- pmatrix lambda_^n- & & & ddots & & & lambda_n^n- pmatrix+...+c_ pmatrix lambda_ & & & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix +c_ I pmatrix P_Alambda_ & & & ddots & & & P_Alambda_n pmatrix bf Lemma . Let Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC be any matrix. Then exists a sequence of matrices A_k kin mathbbZ_geq s.t. abcliste abc A_k is diagonalizable. abc lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_kA. i.e. lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_kijAij forall leq ileq n leq jleq n. abcliste Proof. We have seen that every matrix in M_ntimes nmathbbC is trigonalizable Longrightarrow exists Pin textGLn mathbbC s.t. P^-AP pmatrix lambda_ & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix where lambda_...lambda_nin mathbbC are the eigenvalues of A or more precisely the zeroes of P_Ax each of them appearing in the diagonal as many times as its algebraic multiplicity and b_ijin mathbbC leq i jleq n. Note that AP pmatrix lambda_ & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrixP^-. Let Kin mathbbZ_geq . Pick lambda_k...lambda_nkin mathbbC s.t. abcliste abc |lambda_ik-lambda_i| frac k. abc lambda_k...lambda_nk are pairwise distinct. abclisteDefine A_k:P pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^-. Clearly A_k has n distinct eigenvalues namely lambda_k...lambda_nk Longrightarrow A_k is diagonalizable alternatively P_A_kx splits o n distinct linear factors lambda_k-x... lambda_nk-x and forall i we have m_aA_k;lambda_ik We have lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_klim_limitskrightarrow inftyP pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- P lim_limitskrightarrow infty pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- P pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- A forall given matrices PQin M_ntimes nK the map M_ntimes nmathbbClongrightarrow M_ntimes nmathbbC xlongmapsto Ptimes Q is continous. bf Lemma . Cayley-Hamilton holds for every matrix Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC. Proof. By Lemma exists A_k diagonalizable forall k s.t. A_klongrightarrow A. By Lemma P_A_kA_k forall k. But P_A_kA_klongrightarrow P_AA because P_BB deps continously on B every entry in P_BB is a polynomial function of the entries of B. Longrightarrow P_AA. bf Summary. We have proven Cayley-Hamilton over mathbbC. We'll see that this implies the theorem over every field K.
Meta Information
Exercise:
abcliste abc Let Ain M_ntimes nK. Then P_AA. abc Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over K and Tin textEndV. Then P_TT. abcliste
Solution:
Proof. We first with Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC. bf Lemma . Suppose Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC is diagonalizable. Then P_AA. Proof. By asption Q^-AQ pmatrix lambda_ & & & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix. for some lambda_...lambda_nin mathbbC the eigenvalues of A. and some Qin textGLnmathbbC. We know that P_Alambda_...P_Alambda_n. Write P_Axc_nx^n+c_n-x^n-+...+c_x+c_. We have Q^-P_AAQc_nQ^-A^nQ+c_n-Q^-A^n-Q+...+c_Q^-AQ+c_Q^-IQ c_nQ^-AQ^n+c_n-Q^-AQ^n-+...+c_Q^-AQ+c_ I c_nLambda^n+c_n-Lambda^n-+...+c_Lambda+c_ I c_n pmatrix lambda_^n & & & ddots & & & lambda_n^n pmatrix+ c_n- pmatrix lambda_^n- & & & ddots & & & lambda_n^n- pmatrix+...+c_ pmatrix lambda_ & & & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix +c_ I pmatrix P_Alambda_ & & & ddots & & & P_Alambda_n pmatrix bf Lemma . Let Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC be any matrix. Then exists a sequence of matrices A_k kin mathbbZ_geq s.t. abcliste abc A_k is diagonalizable. abc lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_kA. i.e. lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_kijAij forall leq ileq n leq jleq n. abcliste Proof. We have seen that every matrix in M_ntimes nmathbbC is trigonalizable Longrightarrow exists Pin textGLn mathbbC s.t. P^-AP pmatrix lambda_ & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix where lambda_...lambda_nin mathbbC are the eigenvalues of A or more precisely the zeroes of P_Ax each of them appearing in the diagonal as many times as its algebraic multiplicity and b_ijin mathbbC leq i jleq n. Note that AP pmatrix lambda_ & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrixP^-. Let Kin mathbbZ_geq . Pick lambda_k...lambda_nkin mathbbC s.t. abcliste abc |lambda_ik-lambda_i| frac k. abc lambda_k...lambda_nk are pairwise distinct. abclisteDefine A_k:P pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^-. Clearly A_k has n distinct eigenvalues namely lambda_k...lambda_nk Longrightarrow A_k is diagonalizable alternatively P_A_kx splits o n distinct linear factors lambda_k-x... lambda_nk-x and forall i we have m_aA_k;lambda_ik We have lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_klim_limitskrightarrow inftyP pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- P lim_limitskrightarrow infty pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- P pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- A forall given matrices PQin M_ntimes nK the map M_ntimes nmathbbClongrightarrow M_ntimes nmathbbC xlongmapsto Ptimes Q is continous. bf Lemma . Cayley-Hamilton holds for every matrix Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC. Proof. By Lemma exists A_k diagonalizable forall k s.t. A_klongrightarrow A. By Lemma P_A_kA_k forall k. But P_A_kA_klongrightarrow P_AA because P_BB deps continously on B every entry in P_BB is a polynomial function of the entries of B. Longrightarrow P_AA. bf Summary. We have proven Cayley-Hamilton over mathbbC. We'll see that this implies the theorem over every field K.
abcliste abc Let Ain M_ntimes nK. Then P_AA. abc Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over K and Tin textEndV. Then P_TT. abcliste
Solution:
Proof. We first with Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC. bf Lemma . Suppose Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC is diagonalizable. Then P_AA. Proof. By asption Q^-AQ pmatrix lambda_ & & & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix. for some lambda_...lambda_nin mathbbC the eigenvalues of A. and some Qin textGLnmathbbC. We know that P_Alambda_...P_Alambda_n. Write P_Axc_nx^n+c_n-x^n-+...+c_x+c_. We have Q^-P_AAQc_nQ^-A^nQ+c_n-Q^-A^n-Q+...+c_Q^-AQ+c_Q^-IQ c_nQ^-AQ^n+c_n-Q^-AQ^n-+...+c_Q^-AQ+c_ I c_nLambda^n+c_n-Lambda^n-+...+c_Lambda+c_ I c_n pmatrix lambda_^n & & & ddots & & & lambda_n^n pmatrix+ c_n- pmatrix lambda_^n- & & & ddots & & & lambda_n^n- pmatrix+...+c_ pmatrix lambda_ & & & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix +c_ I pmatrix P_Alambda_ & & & ddots & & & P_Alambda_n pmatrix bf Lemma . Let Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC be any matrix. Then exists a sequence of matrices A_k kin mathbbZ_geq s.t. abcliste abc A_k is diagonalizable. abc lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_kA. i.e. lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_kijAij forall leq ileq n leq jleq n. abcliste Proof. We have seen that every matrix in M_ntimes nmathbbC is trigonalizable Longrightarrow exists Pin textGLn mathbbC s.t. P^-AP pmatrix lambda_ & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrix where lambda_...lambda_nin mathbbC are the eigenvalues of A or more precisely the zeroes of P_Ax each of them appearing in the diagonal as many times as its algebraic multiplicity and b_ijin mathbbC leq i jleq n. Note that AP pmatrix lambda_ & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_n pmatrixP^-. Let Kin mathbbZ_geq . Pick lambda_k...lambda_nkin mathbbC s.t. abcliste abc |lambda_ik-lambda_i| frac k. abc lambda_k...lambda_nk are pairwise distinct. abclisteDefine A_k:P pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^-. Clearly A_k has n distinct eigenvalues namely lambda_k...lambda_nk Longrightarrow A_k is diagonalizable alternatively P_A_kx splits o n distinct linear factors lambda_k-x... lambda_nk-x and forall i we have m_aA_k;lambda_ik We have lim_limitskrightarrow inftyA_klim_limitskrightarrow inftyP pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- P lim_limitskrightarrow infty pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- P pmatrix lambda_k & & b_ij & ddots & & & lambda_nk pmatrixP^- A forall given matrices PQin M_ntimes nK the map M_ntimes nmathbbClongrightarrow M_ntimes nmathbbC xlongmapsto Ptimes Q is continous. bf Lemma . Cayley-Hamilton holds for every matrix Ain M_ntimes nmathbbC. Proof. By Lemma exists A_k diagonalizable forall k s.t. A_klongrightarrow A. By Lemma P_A_kA_k forall k. But P_A_kA_klongrightarrow P_AA because P_BB deps continously on B every entry in P_BB is a polynomial function of the entries of B. Longrightarrow P_AA. bf Summary. We have proven Cayley-Hamilton over mathbbC. We'll see that this implies the theorem over every field K.
Contained in these collections:

