This set is due Monday, April 11. The questions in problem 2 are required from everybody, and graduate students should also work on problem 1. (Of course, it would make me happier if everybody attempts problem 1 as well.)

1. Let be a real finite-dimensional, inner product space. For , define

,

and

.

a. Prove that is a norm on the vector space . In particular, for all . Also, prove that for all b. Prove that for all . Is also a norm? c. Prove that for any there are vectors of norm 1 with and . d. Suppose now that is such that . Prove (without appealing to the fundamental theorem of algebra and without using determinants) that admits an eigenvalue (real) with eigenvector as in item c and, in fact, . e. Prove that for any , we have . f. Suppose that is self-adjoint. Check that so is and that . In particular, this gives a proof that squares of self-adjoint operators on real vector spaces admit eigenvalues that does not use the fundamental theorem of algebra. Check that the eigenvalues of are non-negative. g. Again, let be self-adjoint. (So we know there is an orthonormal basis for consisting of eigenvectors of ) Assume also that is invertible, that there is a unique eigenvalue of of largest absolute value, and that this satisfies . Let be an eigenvector of with eigenvalue and such that . Starting with a vector of norm 1 (arbitrary except for the fact that is not orthogonal to ), define a sequence of unit vectors by setting

(and note we are not dividing by 0, so these vectors are well defined). Also, define a sequence of numbers by setting

Prove that there is a sequence with each equal to 1 or and such that

and

as .

2. Solve problems 7.1, 7.3, 7.6, 7.7, 7.11, 7.14 from the book.

Note: In problem 1.f, the eigenvalues of are precisely the squares of the eigenvalues of , but at the moment I do not have a way of showing this directly. As extra-credit, show without appealing to the fundamental theorem of algebra (and without using determinants, of course) that must have a real eigenvalue.

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Monday, March 21st, 2011 at 11:06 pm and is filed under 403/503: Linear Algebra II. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The technique of almost disjoint forcing was introduced in MR0289291 (44 #6482). Jensen, R. B.; Solovay, R. M. Some applications of almost disjoint sets. In Mathematical Logic and Foundations of Set Theory (Proc. Internat. Colloq., Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 84–104, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970. Fix an almost disjoint family $X=(x_\alpha:\alpha

At the moment most of those decisions come from me, at least for computer science papers (those with a 68 class as primary). The practice of having proceedings and final versions of papers is not exclusive to computer science, but this is where it is most common. I've found more often than not that the journal version is significantly different from the […]

The answer is no in general. For instance, by what is essentially an argument of Sierpiński, if $(X,\Sigma,\nu)$ is a $\sigma$-finite continuous measure space, then no non-null subset of $X$ admits a $\nu\times\nu$-measurable well-ordering. The proof is almost verbatim the one here. It is consistent (assuming large cardinals) that there is an extension of Le […]

I assume by $\aleph$ you mean $\mathfrak c$, the cardinality of the continuum. You can build $D$ by transfinite recursion: Well-order the continuum in type $\mathfrak c$. At stage $\alpha$ you add a point of $A_\alpha$ to your set, and one to its complement. You can always do this because at each stage fewer than $\mathfrak c$ many points have been selected. […]

Stefan, "low" cardinalities do not change by passing from $L({\mathbb R})$ to $L({\mathbb R})[{\mathcal U}]$, so the answer to the second question is negative. More precisely: Assume determinacy in $L({\mathbb R})$. Then $2^\omega/E_0$ is a successor cardinal to ${\mathfrak c}$ (This doesn't matter, all we need is that it is strictly larger. T […]

The power of a set is its cardinality. (As opposed to its power set, which is something else.) As you noticed in the comments, Kurepa trees are supposed to have countable levels, although just saying that a tree has size and height $\omega_1$ is not enough to conclude this, so the definition you quoted is incomplete as stated. Usually the convention is that […]

The key problem in the absence of the axiom of replacement is that there may be well-ordered sets $S$ that are too large in the sense that they are longer than any ordinal. In that case, the collection of ordinals isomorphic to an initial segment of $S$ would be the class of all ordinals, which is not a set. For example, with $\omega$ denoting as usual the f […]

R. Solovay proved that the provably $\mathbf\Delta^1_2$ sets are Lebesgue measurable (and have the property of Baire). A set $A$ is provably $\mathbf\Delta^1_2$ iff there is a real $a$, a $\Sigma^1_2$ formula $\phi(x,y)$ and a $\Pi^1_2$ formula $\psi(x,y)$ such that $A=\{t\mid \phi(t,a)\}=\{t\mid\psi(t,a)\}$, and $\mathsf{ZFC}$ proves that $\phi$ and $\psi$ […]

Yes, the suggested rearrangement converges to 0. This is a particular case of a result of Martin Ohm: For $p$ and $q$ positive integers rearrange the sequence $$\left(\frac{(−1)^{n-1}} n\right)_{n\ge 1} $$ by taking the ﬁrst $p$ positive terms, then the ﬁrst $q$ negative terms, then the next $p$ positive terms, then the next $q$ negative terms, and so on. Th […]

Yes, by the incompleteness theorem. An easy argument is to enumerate the sentences in the language of arithmetic. Assign to each node $\sigma $ of the tree $2^{