345:. I don't think the above statement is in need of a reference because, for anyone who knows what an eigendecomposition of a matrix is, it's an elementary, obvious statement. For anyone who doesn't know what eigenvalues are, it's unintelligible and no reference could redeem it. Symmetric matrices loom large in eigenvalue studies. I'm well able to forgive your ignorance about this but I also believe you shouldn't be spending your time editing this kind of material -- I believe you'd be better off spending your time learning it, or else editing other material where you're more knowledgeable.
511:. It seems to be true for all fields, with characteristic 2 only having the quirk that not all symmetric bilinear forms can be diagonalized, so I suppose a signature is difficult to define for those that cannot. Perhaps we could put it in, and hope someone will reference it? There are a few caveats to mention, such as with complex numbers, where every number is a square, so the signature and rank are the same (only the number of 0s and 1s count, not −1s). Unfortunately, I do not have enough knowledge to include this all in the article. —
84:
74:
53:
22:
197:
According to Horn and
Johnson Thm 4.5.8, Sylvester's law of inertia says two Hermitian matrices A and B are unitarily similar iff they have the same inertia. If I'm not mistakened, what is here is trivial-- eigenvalues don't change under similarity transforms, so of course the inertia doesn't change.
475:
Is there any published work on the generalization to arbitrary fields (presumably with the exception of fields of characteristic 2)? This seems fairly straightforward, and seems like an appropriate generalization to include in this article.
304:
s eigenvectors. When two or more of the eigenvalues along the diagonal have the same value, the associated eigenvectors can form combinations that are eigenvectors too. Other than that, the eigenvectors are unique for a given symmetric
313:
Apart from the tone being more appropriate for a textbook than for an encyclopedia (where results are usually stated without proof), I wonder whether this description is correct, since the diagonalization for eigenvalues usually has
182:
Hello Sorry but i am always looking for more general definitions. On one hand this avoids confusion, on the other hand it becomes increasingly difficult to understand a simple case of something.
140:
455:
If a change of coordinate sends a vector x to xS then a bilinear form expressed xAx^T will change to xSA(xS)^T = x(SAS^T)x^T. The effect is the same as changing A to SAS^T.
507:
That seems to confirm it (for all fields), and I can see smatterings of this in various books, but I don't see anything that I can interpret directly. See, for example,
427:
I am confused about the statement that S A S^T can be interpreted as a change of basis. Should it not be S A S^-1? This appears also in another comment below.
537:
130:
322:
on the right side. If the passage is OK, please forgive my ignorance; but perhapt it should be rephrased and provided with a reference. All the best, --
532:
408:
The current section entitled "Statement in terms of eigenvalues" doesn't actually state the law -- added a concise statement along with a reference.
201:
106:
443:
97:
58:
487:
165:. If not, then the quadratic form interpretation picks up only the symmetric part of A, throwing away the anti-symmetric part.
380:
342:
213:
161:. If A is symmetric one can get away with saying the eigenvalues of A are also its diagonal entries when thought of as a
33:
341:
The matrix in question is symmetric, and the eigendecompositon of a symmetric matrix is of the form QDQ, as stated at
244:
Someone just added this explanation to the statement that "the law can be formulated in terms of the eigenvalues":
226:
21:
494:
350:
186:
413:
396:
370:
327:
460:
439:
209:
171:
39:
83:
431:
409:
365:
Sorry, I forgot that the matrix was symmetric. I will try to restore the paragraph. All the best, --
435:
205:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
490:
388:
346:
89:
488:
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/105870/over-which-fields-is-the-sylvester-law-of-inertia-valid
73:
52:
512:
508:
477:
392:
384:
366:
323:
456:
296:
can have no effect, since two negatives multiplied together produces a positive. The matrix
158:
515:
498:
480:
464:
447:
417:
400:
374:
354:
331:
233:
217:
189:
article, only uses ordered fields, and orthogonal basisses. Eigenvalues need not exist.
225:
I agree with this, and I'm going to change the statement of the theorem to one based on
162:
526:
230:
102:
79:
509:
The
Collected Mathematical Papers of Leonard Eugene Dickson, Volume 6, p. 330
168:
The simplest thing would be to clarify by making A symmetric at the outset.
309:
except that each eigenvector can be rescaled and sign-flipped arbitrarily.
486:
Nice idea! I think a good starting point could be this answer at MO:
157:
This isn't as clear as it might be. Nowhere is it said that A is a
423:
Why is S^T interpreted as a change of basis as opposed to S^-1?
15:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
268:can also be diagonalized by any matrix of the form
229:and emphasize the difference you pointed out.
8:
379:Restored it, please check. By the way, the
19:
47:
178:much more general and without eigenvalues
185:Anyway, the form of the law i use in my
49:
276:is any diagonal matrix at all, i.e.,
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
471:Generalization to arbitrary fields
14:
538:Low-priority mathematics articles
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
533:Start-Class mathematics articles
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
383:article was incorrect: it said
240:Diagonalization for eigenvalues
135:This article has been rated as
381:eigendecomposition of a matrix
343:Eigendecomposition_of_a_matrix
252:be a matrix that diagonalizes
1:
448:15:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
465:19:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
401:20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
375:20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
355:18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
332:18:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
234:18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
554:
418:01:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
227:congruence transformations
516:02:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
218:22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
174:09:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
499:23:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
481:21:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
141:project's priority scale
187:Symmetric bilinear form
98:WikiProject Mathematics
28:This article is rated
204:comment was added by
121:mathematics articles
391:. All the best, --
284:is diagonal. Since
389:orthonormal matrix
264:is diagonal. Then
193:different theorem?
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
451:
434:comment added by
385:orthogonal matrix
221:
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
545:
450:
428:
199:
172:Charles Matthews
159:symmetric matrix
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
553:
552:
548:
547:
546:
544:
543:
542:
523:
522:
473:
429:
425:
292:, the signs in
242:
200:—The preceding
195:
180:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
551:
549:
541:
540:
535:
525:
524:
521:
520:
519:
518:
502:
501:
472:
469:
468:
467:
424:
421:
406:
405:
404:
403:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
311:
310:
241:
238:
237:
236:
194:
191:
179:
176:
163:quadratic form
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
550:
539:
536:
534:
531:
530:
528:
517:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
503:
500:
496:
492:
491:Saung Tadashi
489:
485:
484:
483:
482:
479:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
453:
452:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
422:
420:
419:
415:
411:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
356:
352:
348:
347:Seanwal111111
344:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
308:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
246:
245:
239:
235:
232:
228:
224:
223:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
192:
190:
188:
183:
177:
175:
173:
169:
166:
164:
160:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
474:
430:— Preceding
426:
407:
393:Jorge Stolfi
387:, should be
367:Jorge Stolfi
324:Jorge Stolfi
319:
318:rather than
315:
312:
306:
301:
300:consists of
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
243:
196:
184:
181:
170:
167:
156:
137:Low-priority
136:
96:
62:Low‑priority
40:WikiProjects
457:Deltahedron
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
30:Start-class
527:Categories
410:Adam Marsh
444:contribs
436:Rejapoci
432:unsigned
256:, i.e.,
231:Akriasas
214:contribs
206:Swiftset
202:unsigned
513:Quondum
478:Quondum
139:on the
272:where
36:scale.
278:WQAQW
495:talk
461:talk
440:talk
414:talk
397:talk
371:talk
351:talk
328:talk
248:Let
210:talk
290:DWW
286:WDW
282:WDW
258:QAQ
131:Low
529::
497:)
463:)
446:)
442:•
416:)
399:)
373:)
353:)
330:)
302:A'
288:=
280:=
270:WQ
260:=
216:)
212:•
493:(
476:—
459:(
438:(
412:(
395:(
369:(
349:(
326:(
320:S
316:S
307:A
298:Q
294:W
274:W
266:A
262:D
254:A
250:Q
220:.
208:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
