Spectral 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:
Let V be a finite dimensional inner product space over mathbbC and T:Vrightarrow V a linear map. Then T is orthogonally diagonalizable iff T is normal.
Solution:
Proof. We only need to prove the direction T is normal Longrightarrow T is orthogonally diagonalizable. By a previous theorem T is trigonalizable because KmathbbC i.e. exists a basis mathcalC for V s.t. T_mathcalC^mathcalC is an upper triangular matrix. By applying Gram-Schmidt to the basis mathcalC we obtain a new basis mathcalBv_...v_n which is orthonormal and s.t. T_mathcalB^mathcalB is still upper-triangular. We claim that T_mathcalB^mathcalB is actually diagonal. To see this write T_mathcalB^mathcalBa_ij_leq ileq n leq jleq n pmatrix a_ & a_ & s & a_n & a_ & s & a_n & & ddots & vdots & & s & a_nn pmatrix Since mathcalB is orthonormal we have ||Tv_||^ |a_|^. Since T^*_mathcalB^mathcalB leftT_mathcalB^mathcalBright^T we also have: ||T^*v_||^ _k^n|overlinea_k|^ |a_|^+...+|a_n|^ As T is normal ||Tv_||||T^*v_|| hence a_...a_n. This shows that T_mathcalB^mathcalB pmatrix a_ & & s & & a_ & s & a_n & & ddots & vdots & & s & a_nn pmatrix ||Tv_||^ |a_|^ and ||T^*v_||^ |a_|^+|a_|^+...+|a_n|^. As ||Tv_||||T^*v_|| we obtain a_...a_n. We can continue this proof by induction and show that forall leq k n we have a_k k+...a_kn hence T_mathcalB^mathcalB is diagonal.
Let V be a finite dimensional inner product space over mathbbC and T:Vrightarrow V a linear map. Then T is orthogonally diagonalizable iff T is normal.
Solution:
Proof. We only need to prove the direction T is normal Longrightarrow T is orthogonally diagonalizable. By a previous theorem T is trigonalizable because KmathbbC i.e. exists a basis mathcalC for V s.t. T_mathcalC^mathcalC is an upper triangular matrix. By applying Gram-Schmidt to the basis mathcalC we obtain a new basis mathcalBv_...v_n which is orthonormal and s.t. T_mathcalB^mathcalB is still upper-triangular. We claim that T_mathcalB^mathcalB is actually diagonal. To see this write T_mathcalB^mathcalBa_ij_leq ileq n leq jleq n pmatrix a_ & a_ & s & a_n & a_ & s & a_n & & ddots & vdots & & s & a_nn pmatrix Since mathcalB is orthonormal we have ||Tv_||^ |a_|^. Since T^*_mathcalB^mathcalB leftT_mathcalB^mathcalBright^T we also have: ||T^*v_||^ _k^n|overlinea_k|^ |a_|^+...+|a_n|^ As T is normal ||Tv_||||T^*v_|| hence a_...a_n. This shows that T_mathcalB^mathcalB pmatrix a_ & & s & & a_ & s & a_n & & ddots & vdots & & s & a_nn pmatrix ||Tv_||^ |a_|^ and ||T^*v_||^ |a_|^+|a_|^+...+|a_n|^. As ||Tv_||||T^*v_|| we obtain a_...a_n. We can continue this proof by induction and show that forall leq k n we have a_k k+...a_kn hence T_mathcalB^mathcalB is diagonal.
Meta Information
Exercise:
Let V be a finite dimensional inner product space over mathbbC and T:Vrightarrow V a linear map. Then T is orthogonally diagonalizable iff T is normal.
Solution:
Proof. We only need to prove the direction T is normal Longrightarrow T is orthogonally diagonalizable. By a previous theorem T is trigonalizable because KmathbbC i.e. exists a basis mathcalC for V s.t. T_mathcalC^mathcalC is an upper triangular matrix. By applying Gram-Schmidt to the basis mathcalC we obtain a new basis mathcalBv_...v_n which is orthonormal and s.t. T_mathcalB^mathcalB is still upper-triangular. We claim that T_mathcalB^mathcalB is actually diagonal. To see this write T_mathcalB^mathcalBa_ij_leq ileq n leq jleq n pmatrix a_ & a_ & s & a_n & a_ & s & a_n & & ddots & vdots & & s & a_nn pmatrix Since mathcalB is orthonormal we have ||Tv_||^ |a_|^. Since T^*_mathcalB^mathcalB leftT_mathcalB^mathcalBright^T we also have: ||T^*v_||^ _k^n|overlinea_k|^ |a_|^+...+|a_n|^ As T is normal ||Tv_||||T^*v_|| hence a_...a_n. This shows that T_mathcalB^mathcalB pmatrix a_ & & s & & a_ & s & a_n & & ddots & vdots & & s & a_nn pmatrix ||Tv_||^ |a_|^ and ||T^*v_||^ |a_|^+|a_|^+...+|a_n|^. As ||Tv_||||T^*v_|| we obtain a_...a_n. We can continue this proof by induction and show that forall leq k n we have a_k k+...a_kn hence T_mathcalB^mathcalB is diagonal.
Let V be a finite dimensional inner product space over mathbbC and T:Vrightarrow V a linear map. Then T is orthogonally diagonalizable iff T is normal.
Solution:
Proof. We only need to prove the direction T is normal Longrightarrow T is orthogonally diagonalizable. By a previous theorem T is trigonalizable because KmathbbC i.e. exists a basis mathcalC for V s.t. T_mathcalC^mathcalC is an upper triangular matrix. By applying Gram-Schmidt to the basis mathcalC we obtain a new basis mathcalBv_...v_n which is orthonormal and s.t. T_mathcalB^mathcalB is still upper-triangular. We claim that T_mathcalB^mathcalB is actually diagonal. To see this write T_mathcalB^mathcalBa_ij_leq ileq n leq jleq n pmatrix a_ & a_ & s & a_n & a_ & s & a_n & & ddots & vdots & & s & a_nn pmatrix Since mathcalB is orthonormal we have ||Tv_||^ |a_|^. Since T^*_mathcalB^mathcalB leftT_mathcalB^mathcalBright^T we also have: ||T^*v_||^ _k^n|overlinea_k|^ |a_|^+...+|a_n|^ As T is normal ||Tv_||||T^*v_|| hence a_...a_n. This shows that T_mathcalB^mathcalB pmatrix a_ & & s & & a_ & s & a_n & & ddots & vdots & & s & a_nn pmatrix ||Tv_||^ |a_|^ and ||T^*v_||^ |a_|^+|a_|^+...+|a_n|^. As ||Tv_||||T^*v_|| we obtain a_...a_n. We can continue this proof by induction and show that forall leq k n we have a_k k+...a_kn hence T_mathcalB^mathcalB is diagonal.
Contained in these collections:

