Posted by mazemaster on Mon Oct 3rd at 2:54am 2005
-----
The meaning of eigenvectors and eigenvalues:
The definition of an eigenvalue eigenvector pair for a given matrix is that when you hit the eigenvector with the matrix, you get the same thing when you multiply the vector by the eigenvalue.
This is written like so:
matrix*eigenvector = eigenvalue*eigenvector, or
A*v_eig = lambda*v_eig.
Basically when you take any vector 'v_initial' and "hit it" with a matrix 'A',
ie: A*v_initial = v_final,
the vector 'v_initial' is transformed into a new vector 'v_final'. Depending on the matrix, this transformation can be a reflection about a line, a rotation, a scaling, combinations of those things, etc...
Geometrically eigenvectors are just a special case where the vector is only scaled - no rotations, reflections, etc. You hit v_eig with A, and you get out v_eig multiplied by a scaling factor.
-----
Ok, so now onto actually solving for eigenvalues and eigenvectors (witout the guesswork):
-----
Finding Eigenvalues:
We start with the basic definition for eigenvectors and eigenvalues:
A*v_eig = lambda*v_eig
We want to somehow solve for lambda from that. So first we might try subtracting lambda*v_eig from both sides of the equation.
A*v_eig - lambda*v_eig = 0_vector
Here we get mildly excited since we notice that both of the terms have a v_eig in them. It would be super-nice if we could factor out that v_eig from both terms. Unfortunately we can't factor it as (A-lambda)*v_eig, since you can't subtract a scalar (lambda) from a matrix (A).
The trick is to remember that if you hit any vector with the Identity matrix, you get back the origiona vector. Using this fact, we can write the equation as:
A*v_eig - lambda*(I*v_eig) = 0_vector, or
A*v_eig - (lambda*I)*v_eig = 0_vector
This we _can_ factor, and we get
(A - lambda*I)*v_eig = 0_vector
Now we have a matrix hitting a vector, and we get out the zero vector. If you recall from matrix multiplication and determinant properties, this can happen in 2 cases:
1: v_eig is the zero vector (not very interesting), or
2: the determinant of (A - lambda*I) is zero.
The 2nd case is interesting because it gives us a nice equation that we can use to solve for lambda:
det(A-lambda*I) = 0
All you have to do is calculate that determinant, set it equal to zero, and solve for lambda. You will likely notice that the equation you get will have multiple "roots" ie: you will be able to write it as
(lambda - x0)(lambda - x1) (...) = 0.
These multiple solutions (lambda_1 = x1, lambda_2 = x2, ..., lambda_n = xn) are all valid and each one will correspond to an eigenvector.
Ok, now on to finding those eigenvectors that they correspond to:
-----
Finding eigenvectors given their eigenvalues.
Once you have the eigenvalues, you can just plug them into the equation:
(A-lambda*I)*v_eig = 0
But thats just a system of linear equations you can solve by row-reduction. So all you have to do is do row-reduction on the matrix (A-lambda*I), and you will get out the components of the eigenvector.
Posted by Crono on Mon Oct 3rd at 2:58am 2005
Posted by mazemaster on Mon Oct 3rd at 3:02am 2005
Posted by Crono on Mon Oct 3rd at 4:02am 2005
Can someone explain why it's that way in my book and in the class I had ... and other books, then? I'm sure both give the answer you need. Actually ... yeah, they are both right. When I did it you end up with negative numbers throughout the matrix, wonder which is preferred ... since they're both right. However ... if you do it the way I did it there'd be no re-arranging once you get ready to factor ... if you need to rearrange for personal reasons anyway.
Posted by wil5on on Mon Oct 3rd at 4:50am 2005
OK, I've done it. Heres how I did it (pretty similar to whats been posted here already):
Find eigenvalues, solve for det(lambda*I - A) = 0 (if you do A-lambda*I, it will work out the same, detA = det(-A)). This got a bit tricky, I used the quadratic formula to solve. Then eigenvectors, I did almost exactly what crono did. G-S from that to get ON bases, and put them into a matrix.
The answer is: P=
0 1/sqrt(2) 1/sqrt(2)
0 -1/sqrt(2) 1/sqrt(2)
1 0 0
Thanks for the help guys. I was thinking there must be a trick to this... apparently not.
wil5on
member
1733 posts
323 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 12th 2003
Location: Adelaide

Occupation: Mapper
- My yr11 Economics teacher
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Oct 3rd at 4:54am 2005
Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US

Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
http://www.dimebowl.com
Posted by Crono on Mon Oct 3rd at 6:14am 2005
Wil5on! I forgot to mention to use the quadratic formula, sorry. That's right, because using lambda = a only gave you one value, right? Which is the 001 vector. The quadratic formula would give the other two ... yeah ... I think that's it.
Anyway, nice. You solved it: yay. Now, cross it back to make sure it's correct.
Posted by habboi on Mon Oct 3rd at 3:53pm 2005
Posted by rival on Mon Oct 3rd at 5:59pm 2005
rival
member
512 posts
81 snarkmarks
Registered: Apr 7th 2005
Location: inverness

Occupation: being a pain in the ass
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"
Posted by Crono on Tue Oct 4th at 1:12am 2005
Actually, if I recall, chapter three in my book is Calculus 4 at my school ... it all starts blending and bleeding together once you get high enough.
Oh and if you're wondering, trigonometry is pre-calculus. Actually, quite literally, I haven't seen a class called "trigonometry" in a long time.
Posted by FatStrings on Tue Oct 4th at 1:44am 2005
im still in college al and anal math
of course im only a junior in highschool
FatStrings
member
1242 posts
132 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 11th 2005
Location: USA
Occupation: Architecture Student
Posted by Windows 98 on Tue Oct 4th at 1:47am 2005
^_^, I just got onto matrices today, maybe I could help with a quick look through my book.
Windows 98
member
757 posts
86 snarkmarks
Registered: Apr 25th 2005
Location: USA

Occupation: Student
Posted by wil5on on Tue Oct 4th at 9:46am 2005
wil5on
member
1733 posts
323 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 12th 2003
Location: Adelaide

Occupation: Mapper
- My yr11 Economics teacher
Posted by BlisTer on Tue Oct 4th at 12:55pm 2005
we got all the algebra in the first year along with general calculus, statistics and numerical maths. differential equations in the second year. Those were all complemented with the applied courses for engineering. Numerical modelling was in my 4th year.
Posted by Crono on Wed Oct 5th at 12:39am 2005
I Guess they only teach you what you need to know then. Not here ... it's like, "Hmm ... go learn everything then come back" it really sucks, because not only do you not remember it all, but it becomes harder to conceptualize. Until you get farther along that is.
Posted by FatStrings on Wed Oct 5th at 2:35am 2005
^_^, I just got onto matrices today, maybe I could help with a quick look through my book.
yeah its been like that for me since then too
what level of math are you in
FatStrings
member
1242 posts
132 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 11th 2005
Location: USA
Occupation: Architecture Student
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0187 seconds.

