3

Caveat: this question be supposed for generalized eigenvectors of Jordan Normal Form associated with distinct eigenvalues, but actually, the supplementary answer tackles general cases with repetitiveness.

I have doubts for the second part of this proof by @daw, would you help explain?

  1. Does $A$ have fixed sets of eigenvalues? If so, why can this proof add additional $\lambda_i$ arbitrarily?
  2. Why $(\lambda_{n+1}I - A)^{k_{n+1}}\cdot v_{i} \in ker(\lambda_{i}I - A)^{k_{i}})$ ?
  3. For the last step, from what we infer $a_{n+1} = 0$ ? Since $(\lambda_{n+1}I - A)^{k_{n+1}}\cdot v_{n+1} = 0$, $a_{n+1}$ is not necessarily zero.

Attached Snapshot

enter image description here

Update: proof for question $2$. Assume $\lambda \neq \lambda_i$ and define $$X=(\lambda I - A)^{k}, $$$$W=(\lambda_{i}I - A)^{k_{i}}$$$k_{i}$ is the smallest integer that satisfy $Wv_{i}=0$ by definition. Since $$XW=WX$$hence $$WXv_{i} = XWv_{i} = 0$$
which means $Xv_{i}\in ker(W)$.

Kuo
  • 145

2 Answers2

1
  1. The induction only works for $\ n\ $ up to and including the number of distinct eigenvalues of $\ A\ ,$ but if $\ n\ $ is less than that number then you can clearly$\left.\right.^\color{red}{\dagger}$ carry out the induction step to prove the claim for $\ v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{n+1}\ .$
  2. I see you've already answered question $2$ yourself. Here's an alternative, slightly simpler, argument. Since $\ \big(\lambda_iI-A\big)\big(\lambda_{n+1}I-A\big)=\big(\lambda_{n+1}I-A\big)\big(\lambda_iI-A\big)\ $ then \begin{align}\big(\lambda_iI-A\big)^{k_i}\big(\lambda_{n+1}I-A\big)^{k_{n+1}}v_i&=\big(\lambda_{n+1}I-A\big)^{k_{n+1}}\big(\lambda_iI-A\big)^{k_i}v_i\\&=0\ .\end{align} Therefore, by definition, $\ \big(\lambda_{n+1}I-A\big)^{k_{n+1}}v_i\in\ker\big(\big(\lambda_iI-A\big)^{k_i}\big)\ .$
  3. There was a typo$\left.\right.^\color{red}{\dagger\dagger}$ in the equation in the sentence "Let $\ a_1,$$\,a_2,$$\,\dots,$$\,a_{n+1}\ $ be scalars such that $$\sum_{i=1}^{\color{red}{n+1}}a_iv_i=0\ "\tag{1}\label{e1}$$ When you multiply this equation by $\ \big(\lambda_{n+1}I-A\big)^{k_{n+1}}\ ,$ the final term of the sum vanishes, still leaving you with the equation $$\sum_{i=1}^na_i\big(\lambda_{n+1}I-A\big)^{k_{n+1}}v_i=0 $$ from which the proof proceeds as given. Once you've concluded that $\ a_1=a_2=\dots=a_n=0\ ,$ then $\ a_{n+1}=0\ $ follows from equation $(\ref{e1})$, because $\ v_{n+1}\ne0\ .$

Addendum

On reflection, it seems to me that the appeal to induction makes unnecessarily heavy weather of the proof. If $$ \sum_{i=1}^na_iv_i=0\ ,\tag{2}\label{e2} $$ and $\ k_1,k_2,\dots,k_n\ $ are positive integers such that $\ \big(\lambda_iI-A\big)^{k_i}v_i=$$\,0\ $ for all $\ i\ $, then multiplying equation (\ref{e2}) by $\ \prod_\limits{\ell=1\\\ell\ne j}^n\big(\lambda_\ell I-A\big)^{k_\ell}\ $ gives \begin{align} 0&=\sum_{i=1}^na_i\prod_\limits{\ell=1\\\ell\ne j}^n\big(\lambda_\ell I-A\big)^{k_\ell}v_i\\ &=\sum_{i=1\\i\ne j}^na_i\left(\prod_\limits{\ell=1\\\ell\ne j\\\ell\ne i}^n\big(\lambda_\ell I-A\big)^{k_\ell}\right)\big(\lambda_i-A\big)^{k_i}v_i\\ &\hspace{1em}+a_j\prod_\limits{\ell=1\\\ell\ne j}^n\big(\lambda_\ell I-A\big)^{k_\ell}v_j\\ &=a_j\prod_\limits{\ell=1\\\ell\ne j}^n\big(\lambda_\ell I-A\big)^{k_\ell}v_j\ .\tag3\label{e3} \end{align} Since $\ v_j\ $ is a generalised eigenvector of $\ A\ $ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\ \lambda_j\ ,$ there exists a non-negative integer $\ t\ $ such that $\ \big(\lambda_j I-A)^tv_j\ $ is an eigenvector corresponding to the same eigenvalue. Multiplying both sides of equation (\ref{e3}) by $\ \big(\lambda_j I-A)^t\ $ therefore gives \begin{align} 0&=a_j\big(\lambda_j I-A)^t\prod_\limits{\ell=1\\\ell\ne j}^n\big(\lambda_\ell I-A\big)^{k_\ell}v_j\\ &=a_j\left(\prod_\limits{\ell=1\\\ell\ne j}^n\big(\lambda_\ell I-A\big)^{k_\ell}\right)\big(\lambda_j I-A)^tv_j\\ &=a_j\left(\prod_\limits{\ell=1\\\ell\ne j}^n\big(\lambda_\ell-\lambda_j\big)^{k_\ell}\right)\big(\lambda_jI-A)^tv_j \end{align} from which it folllows that $ \ a_j=0\ ,$ because $\ \lambda_j\ne\lambda_\ell \ $ for any $\ \ell\ne j\ ,$ and $\ \big(\lambda_jI-A)^tv_j\ne0\ $ is an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $\ \lambda_j\ .$

$\left.\right.^\color{red}{\dagger}$ Assuming you're satisfied with my answers to question $3.$

$\left.\right.^\color{red}{\dagger\dagger}$ Which I've now fixed.

lonza leggiera
  • 28,646
  • 2
  • 12
  • 33
  • Life is so hard... it would be nice if elaborate more on substituting $A$ with $\lambda_i$ – Kuo Jan 21 '24 at 20:33
  • I've now added an updated version of the proof, which turned out not to be quite as cumbersome as I had initially thought. – lonza leggiera Jan 23 '24 at 10:09
  • I just realize both proofs are based on a assumption of n distinct eigenvalues... So that we can confidently conclude the proof at equation (3), if $\ell \neq j$, the product $\prod * v_j$ can not be 0. For $v_j \in ker(\lambda_j I - A)^{k_j}$ by definition, a generalized EigenVector can not be in both EigenSpaces. The following step to multiply $(\lambda_j I - A)^t$ should not change the scenario. I believe the only condition can we replace $A$ with $\lambda_j$ is $t \geq k_j$ – Kuo Jan 24 '24 at 17:55
  • I don't understand the final sentence of this comment. For any given $\ j\ $ the number $\ t\ $ is uniquely defined by the requirement that $\ \big(\lambda_jI-A)^tv_j\ $ be an eigenvector of $\ A\ $ and must satisfy $\ 0\le t\color{red}{<}k_j\ $ because $\ (\lambda_j-A)^uv_j=0\ $ for all $\ u\ge k_j\ .$ And since $\ (\lambda_jI-A)^tv_j\ $ is an eigenvector corresponding to eigenvalue $\ \lambda_j\ $ then $\ p(A)(\lambda_jI-A)^tv_j=$$,p(\lambda_j)(\lambda_jI-A)^tv_j\ $ for any polynomial $\ p\ .$ – lonza leggiera Jan 24 '24 at 23:25
  • Now I see. I'm swaying back and forth the narrative of distinctive eigenvalues of the original question and the real life. Following equations (3), it assumes there exist repeated eigenvalues, while in the first place, to multiply $\prod\limits_{\substack{\ell = 1 \ \ell \neq j}}^n({\ell}−)^{{\ell}}$ will get us trouble. It can be vanished because of this repetitiveness. For not crowding the comment area, I had explained the confusion in another thread. But I still prefer your answer and preserve the vote. – Kuo Jan 25 '24 at 05:19
0

Here is for the proof of Independence of Generalized Eigenvectors in real world...which means, there may exist repeated Eigenvalues, such as multiple 0's, different Jordan block sizes associated with one Eigenvalue...

The proof comprises 3 parts:

  1. Basic definitions
  2. Reduce the problem into any one Eigenspace
  3. Further reduce the problem into the largest Jordan block(s)

Part I

To satisfy linear independence of Generalized EigenVectors(GEVs), we claim:
$$\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\gamma(\lambda_i)}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\rho(\lambda_i)^j}a_{ijk}\,v_{ijk} = 0\tag{1}\label{1}$$ iff $a_{ijk}\equiv0$. The meaning of above symbols are as following:

  1. $m$ is the number of distinct Eigenvalues, $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,...\lambda_m$, of $n\times n$ matrix. There are $n$ GEVs by Jordan Normal Form. Here $m\le n$
  2. $\gamma(\lambda_i)$ is Geometric Multiplicity of EigenSpace $E_{\lambda_{i}}$, which is the number of Jordan Blocks for $\lambda_i$.
  3. $\rho(\lambda_i)^j$ is the sizes/dimensions for each Jordan Block of $\lambda_i$. The largest is $\rho(\lambda_i)^{max}$.
  4. $v_{ijk}$ is a GEV of $\lambda_i$ in bock $j$, $a_{ijk}$ is coefficient.
  5. $\mu(\lambda_i)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\gamma(\lambda_i)}\rho(\lambda_i)^j$, Algebraic Multiplicity of $\lambda_i$; and $\sum\limits_{i=1}^m\mu(\lambda_i)=n$

Now that dirty work done, begin proof!

Part II

As defined above $\rho(\lambda_i)^{max}$ is the largest Jordan Block associated with $\lambda_i$,

hence $(\lambda_{i}−)^{\rho(\lambda_i)^{max}}\;v_{ijk}= 0$, i.e., all GEVs $v_{ijk}\!\in \!ker((_{i}−)^{\rho(\lambda_i)^{max}})$.

We then construct an instrumental product $\prod\limits_{\ell = 1}^m(_{\ell}−)^{\rho_{\ell}^{max}\;\mathbb{1}\!(\ell\ne\zeta)}$, where $\mathbb{1}\!(\ell\ne\zeta)$ is an Indicator Function of $\ell\!\ne\!\zeta$, and multiply to both sides of above equation (1): $$\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\gamma(\lambda_i)}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\rho(\lambda_i)^j}a_{ijk}\left(\prod\limits_{\ell = 1}^m(_{\ell}−)^{\rho_{\ell}^{max}\;\mathbb{1}\!(\ell\ne\zeta)}\right)v_{ijk} = 0 \tag{2}\label{2}$$ $$1 \le\zeta\le m$$ Observe lefthand side of equation (2), any summand $a_{i}\!\!\left(\prod\limits_{\ell = 1}^m(_{\ell}−)^{\rho_{\ell}^{max}\;\mathbb{1}\!(\ell\ne\zeta)}\;v_{i}\right)$ will vanish when $i\!\in\!\ell$, thus only one indexed $\zeta$ survives: $$\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\gamma(\lambda_{\zeta})}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\rho(\lambda_{\zeta})^j}a_{\zeta jk}\left(\prod\limits_{\ell = 1}^m(_{\ell}−)^{\rho_{\ell}^{max}\;\mathbb{1}\!(\ell\ne\zeta)}\right)v_{\zeta jk} = 0 \tag{3}\label{3}$$ Considering $\color{blue}{the \;Lemma}$ proved in the question that GEV can not be shared with different Eigenspaces, which means: $$\left(\prod\limits_{\ell = 1}^m(_{\ell}−)^{\rho_{\ell}^{max}\;\mathbb{1}\!(\ell\ne\zeta)}\right)v_{\zeta jk} \neq 0$$ and that $\zeta$ is an arbitrary index of Eigenvalues, thus our task is reduced to a possibily simple problem:

  • prove GEVs associated with the same eigenvalue are independent

Turns out NOT so simple! There is one more thing!

Part III

For now we focus on Eigenspace $E_{\lambda_{\zeta}}$. We leave out the index $\zeta$, drop the instrumental product term, and rewrite the loop Sum (3) as below in a clear form:

$$\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\gamma(\lambda)}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\rho(\lambda)^j}a_{jk}\,v_{jk} = 0\tag{4}\label{4}$$

With Jordan Normal Form of matrix $A$, we have: $$(\lambda I - A)^{\rho(\lambda)^{max}} v = 0 $$ $v$ is any GEV of Eiegnspace $E(\lambda)$, and $$(\lambda I -A) v_{jk} = v_{j(k-1)}$$ $$v_{j0} = 0$$ $(\lambda I - A)$ is acting like an annihilation operator on GEV.

  • Let's break for a second and take a quiz to identify $\gamma(\lambda), \rho(\lambda)^{max}$ for Jordan blocks below, which are associated with the same eigenvalue $\lambda$ from a big matrix with Jordan Normal Form. $$ \begin{pmatrix} \lambda \\ & \lambda & 1\\ & & \lambda\\ & & &\lambda & 1\\ & & & &\lambda \end{pmatrix} $$

Here comes the last straw!

Multiply $(\lambda I -A)$ to both sides of the equation (4) above, and keep doing that to the reduced iteratively. At the end of day, we will either find only one term with an ordinary Eigenvector, which we can safely set its coefficient 0, or come across multiple terms of ordinary Eigenvectors in different blocks, one for each block with size $\rho(\lambda)^{max}$, which are built as linear independent (thinking about a special case, identity matrix $I$).

  • Finally, the process show GEVs in different Jordan blocks are independent.

Q.E.D.

We have no idea about $\color{red}{Minimal\; Polynomial,\; invariant\; space}$ in this proof.

Kuo
  • 145