Thread Rating:
• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 Question concerning Aldrovandi/Freitas-article Gottfried Ultimate Fellow Posts: 790 Threads: 121 Joined: Aug 2007 01/18/2008, 10:28 PM (This post was last modified: 01/18/2008, 10:37 PM by Gottfried.) Hi - maybe this was already discussed here, but rereading Aldrovandi/Freitas I find a remark, which seems to contradict my diagonalization in the exp(x)-1-iteration. They state pg 16, concerning the triangular Bell-matrix, (U or S2 in my notation) Quote:"(...) Bell matrices are not normal, that is, they do not commute with their transposes. Normality is the condition for diagonalizability. This means that Bell matrices cannot be put into diagonal form by a similarity transformation. (...)" In my understanding this remark is a bit misleading; the normality-criterion applies only, if an orthonormal similarity transform is requested, which is usually also called a rotation. But here we are able to do a similarity transform using triangular matrices, which even allows exact powerseries-terms for arbitrary size of matrices. Did I overlook something? Gottfried R. Aldrovandi and L.P.Freitas; Continuous iteration of dynamical maps; 1997; Online at arXiv physics/9712026 16.dec 1997 wikipedia:diagonalizable wikipedia:normal matrix Gottfried Helms, Kassel bo198214 Administrator Posts: 1,395 Threads: 91 Joined: Aug 2007 01/19/2008, 06:30 AM Gottfried Wrote:Quote:"(...) Bell matrices are not normal, that is, they do not commute with their transposes. Normality is the condition for diagonalizability. This means that Bell matrices cannot be put into diagonal form by a similarity transformation. (...)" In my understanding this remark is a bit misleading; the normality-criterion applies only, if an orthonormal similarity transform is requested, which is usually also called a rotation. But here we are able to do a similarity transform using triangular matrices, which even allows exact powerseries-terms for arbitrary size of matrices. Dont understand this either. I think they are wrong. andydude Long Time Fellow Posts: 509 Threads: 44 Joined: Aug 2007 01/19/2008, 08:31 AM So what is the difference between "normality" and "distinct eigenvalues"? I thought that distinct eigenvalues were sufficient for diagonizability... Andrew Robbins bo198214 Administrator Posts: 1,395 Threads: 91 Joined: Aug 2007 01/19/2008, 08:38 AM (This post was last modified: 01/19/2008, 08:39 AM by bo198214.) andydude Wrote:So what is the difference between "normality" and "distinct eigenvalues"? I thought that distinct eigenvalues were sufficient for diagonizability... yes, but not for normality. We have the implications: normal -> diagonizable distinct eigenvalues -> diagonizable but not the reverse directions. Gottfried Ultimate Fellow Posts: 790 Threads: 121 Joined: Aug 2007 01/19/2008, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 01/19/2008, 11:35 AM by Gottfried.) andydude Wrote:So what is the difference between "normality" and "distinct eigenvalues"? I thought that distinct eigenvalues were sufficient for diagonizability... Andrew Robbins "normal": let M be a matrix (we're discussing real matrices for example). Then M is "normal", if M commutes with its transpose M*M' = M'*M This equality is obviously true for symmetric M, but also for some others. It is said, that for normal matrices, if T*M*T^-1 = D , D diagonal, then T is orthogonal, meaning T*T' = T*T^-1=I (I think T is always a rotation) and also T*M*T' = D (from other context I'm used to denote rotation-matrices by letter T) --------------------------- not "normal", but still diagonalizable (the more general case): W*M*W^-1 = D no specific properties on W. Related to current discussion: if M is triangular (and diagonalizable), I think W is also triangular (but I must check this), and the eigenvalues are the entries of its diagonal. ------------------- The question whether eigenvalues are distinct or not is not relevant here; this is only relevant for the description of further properties of W (whether it is unique ... ) Gottfried Gottfried Helms, Kassel « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Math.Stackexchange.com question on extending tetration Daniel 3 1,593 03/31/2021, 12:28 AM Last Post: JmsNxn Kneser method question tommy1729 9 10,395 02/11/2020, 01:26 AM Last Post: sheldonison A Notation Question (raising the highest value in pow-tower to a different power) Micah 8 11,550 02/18/2019, 10:34 PM Last Post: Micah Math overflow question on fractional exponential iterations sheldonison 4 9,520 04/01/2018, 03:09 AM Last Post: JmsNxn Sexp redefined ? Exp^[a]( - 00 ). + question ( TPID 19 ??) tommy1729 0 3,365 09/06/2016, 04:23 PM Last Post: tommy1729 [MO] Is there a tetration for infinite cardinalities? (Question in MO) Gottfried 10 21,522 12/28/2014, 10:22 PM Last Post: MphLee Another question! JmsNxn 4 8,213 08/27/2013, 06:57 PM Last Post: JmsNxn Very curious question JmsNxn 3 7,125 08/20/2013, 08:56 PM Last Post: JmsNxn Question about curvature tommy1729 0 3,059 12/15/2012, 11:38 PM Last Post: tommy1729 (MSE) A limit- question concerning base-change Gottfried 0 4,008 10/03/2012, 06:44 PM Last Post: Gottfried

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)