acidhoony Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 now i'm using apostol calculus book user, the problem says that given n*n matrix A with real entries such that A^2=-I I=UNIT MATRIX THEN PROVE THAT det A = 1 i know that (det A)^2=1 so, det A = +1 or -1 but i cannot prove that why -1 is not how can we prove this thing without using cayley-hamiltion Th. ;because it's proof is either complicated i think this problem may not using cayley hamiltion Th. please solve this problem~
the tree Posted March 17, 2011 Posted March 17, 2011 If there is a proof not reliant on Cayley Hamilton, then I can't see it. I imagine it would be acceptable to take that theorem as a given for the sake of homework.
DrRocket Posted March 17, 2011 Posted March 17, 2011 now i'm using apostol calculus book user, the problem says that given n*n matrix A with real entries such that A^2=-I I=UNIT MATRIX THEN PROVE THAT det A = 1 i know that (det A)^2=1 so, det A = +1 or -1 but i cannot prove that why -1 is not how can we prove this thing without using cayley-hamiltion Th. ;because it's proof is either complicated i think this problem may not using cayley hamiltion Th. please solve this problem~ Let [math] A= \left ( \begin{array} {cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \\ \end{array} \right )[/math] Then [math]A^2 = I[/math] and det[math]A=-1[/math]
acidhoony Posted March 17, 2011 Author Posted March 17, 2011 hello thank you for reply. DrRocket.. but.. i said that A^2 is not I BUT -I PLEASEEEGIVE ME ANOTHER PROOF..
DrRocket Posted March 17, 2011 Posted March 17, 2011 hello thank you for reply. DrRocket.. but.. i said that A^2 is not I BUT -I PLEASEEEGIVE ME ANOTHER PROOF.. [math]A^2= \-I[/math] Note: [math](det \ A)^2=det(-I)=(-1)^n \ \Rightarrow \ n[/math] is even. Note also that the conclusuin that n is even and [math] det \ A \ = \ \pm 1 [/math] would not hold over the complex field, so the proof must take advantage of the fact that we are working over the reals. Sketch of proof: 1. Using Jordan canonical form A can be assumed to be block diagonal, with 2x2 blocks. This reduces the problem to the case n=2. 2. So now [math] A \in (O2)[/math]. [math]A[/math] is thus a composition of a rotation and, if [math]det \ A \ = \ -1[/math], an orientation changing transformation, which can be taken to be . [math] C= \left ( \begin{array} {cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \\ \end{array} \right )[/math] Note that [math]C[/math] does not commute with rotations, but yet that any element in [math]O2[/math] can be written as [math]B[/math] or [math]BC[/math] where [math]B[/math] is some rotation. 3. Now examine the possibilities [math]A= BC[/math] where [math]B[/math] is a rotation and show that [math](BC)^2 \ne \ -I[/math] . 4. That the shows that [math] A [/math] is a rotation through [math]\frac {\pi}{2}[/math] or [math]\frac {3 \pi}{2}[/math] and hence has determinant 1.
acidhoony Posted March 18, 2011 Author Posted March 18, 2011 [math]A^2= \-I[/math] Note: [math](det \ A)^2=det(-I)=(-1)^n \ \Rightarrow \ n[/math] is even. Note also that the conclusuin that n is even and [math] det \ A \ = \ \pm 1 [/math] would not hold over the complex field, so the proof must take advantage of the fact that we are working over the reals. Sketch of proof: 1. Using Jordan canonical form A can be assumed to be block diagonal, with 2x2 blocks. This reduces the problem to the case n=2. 2. So now [math] A \in (O2)[/math]. [math]A[/math] is thus a composition of a rotation and, if [math]det \ A \ = \ -1[/math], an orientation changing transformation, which can be taken to be . [math] C= \left ( \begin{array} {cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \\ \end{array} \right )[/math] Note that [math]C[/math] does not commute with rotations, but yet that any element in [math]O2[/math] can be written as [math]B[/math] or [math]BC[/math] where [math]B[/math] is some rotation. 3. Now examine the possibilities [math]A= BC[/math] where [math]B[/math] is a rotation and show that [math](BC)^2 \ne \ -I[/math] . 4. That the shows that [math] A [/math] is a rotation through [math]\frac {\pi}{2}[/math] or [math]\frac {3 \pi}{2}[/math] and hence has determinant 1. i have another solution please read me dr rocket we haver real matrix A so we have eigen vector which is unreal. and this eigen vector is conjugated because the polynomier of matrix A is "poly"nomier it self and every coefficienet is "real" every eigen value is conjugated!! and A^2 = - I => A^2X=-X =AAX=AaX=a^2x (here a is eigenvalue of matrix A) so we know that (eivenvalue of A )^2 = -1 matrix A is 2k*2k matrix either so we have a1 ................ak, a(k+1),a(k+2),,,,,a2k and they are a k pair of conjugated eigenvalue eigenvalue's product is 1 i didn't prove it well but i think you will be understood it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now