Spectral theorem over $mathbb {R}$












2












$begingroup$


It is clear to me that a self-adjoint linear map on a real/complex inner product space has real eigenvalues, and its eigenspaces for distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal.



In order to prove it is diagonalisable, we also need that the geometric multiplicity of the eigenspaces equals the algebraic multiplicity. How is this done?



In particular, if the arguments differ, how is this demonstrated over $mathbb{R}$? I have seen proofs over $mathbb {C}$, and they use algebraic closure, so I imagine the real case is more involved, and would like to see a proof that works here.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I can see that you would be able to pass to the complexification of your space and use spectral theorem from $mathbb {C}$. Follow ups would then be, prove the eigenvectors are (can be taken as) real. Furthermore, if there is a way to do this natively (without algebraic closure), and it isn't too painful, I'd like to see that.
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua Tilley
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:34
















2












$begingroup$


It is clear to me that a self-adjoint linear map on a real/complex inner product space has real eigenvalues, and its eigenspaces for distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal.



In order to prove it is diagonalisable, we also need that the geometric multiplicity of the eigenspaces equals the algebraic multiplicity. How is this done?



In particular, if the arguments differ, how is this demonstrated over $mathbb{R}$? I have seen proofs over $mathbb {C}$, and they use algebraic closure, so I imagine the real case is more involved, and would like to see a proof that works here.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I can see that you would be able to pass to the complexification of your space and use spectral theorem from $mathbb {C}$. Follow ups would then be, prove the eigenvectors are (can be taken as) real. Furthermore, if there is a way to do this natively (without algebraic closure), and it isn't too painful, I'd like to see that.
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua Tilley
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:34














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


It is clear to me that a self-adjoint linear map on a real/complex inner product space has real eigenvalues, and its eigenspaces for distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal.



In order to prove it is diagonalisable, we also need that the geometric multiplicity of the eigenspaces equals the algebraic multiplicity. How is this done?



In particular, if the arguments differ, how is this demonstrated over $mathbb{R}$? I have seen proofs over $mathbb {C}$, and they use algebraic closure, so I imagine the real case is more involved, and would like to see a proof that works here.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




It is clear to me that a self-adjoint linear map on a real/complex inner product space has real eigenvalues, and its eigenspaces for distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal.



In order to prove it is diagonalisable, we also need that the geometric multiplicity of the eigenspaces equals the algebraic multiplicity. How is this done?



In particular, if the arguments differ, how is this demonstrated over $mathbb{R}$? I have seen proofs over $mathbb {C}$, and they use algebraic closure, so I imagine the real case is more involved, and would like to see a proof that works here.







linear-algebra diagonalization






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 5 '18 at 18:27







Joshua Tilley

















asked Dec 5 '18 at 18:21









Joshua TilleyJoshua Tilley

541313




541313












  • $begingroup$
    I can see that you would be able to pass to the complexification of your space and use spectral theorem from $mathbb {C}$. Follow ups would then be, prove the eigenvectors are (can be taken as) real. Furthermore, if there is a way to do this natively (without algebraic closure), and it isn't too painful, I'd like to see that.
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua Tilley
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:34


















  • $begingroup$
    I can see that you would be able to pass to the complexification of your space and use spectral theorem from $mathbb {C}$. Follow ups would then be, prove the eigenvectors are (can be taken as) real. Furthermore, if there is a way to do this natively (without algebraic closure), and it isn't too painful, I'd like to see that.
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua Tilley
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:34
















$begingroup$
I can see that you would be able to pass to the complexification of your space and use spectral theorem from $mathbb {C}$. Follow ups would then be, prove the eigenvectors are (can be taken as) real. Furthermore, if there is a way to do this natively (without algebraic closure), and it isn't too painful, I'd like to see that.
$endgroup$
– Joshua Tilley
Dec 5 '18 at 18:34




$begingroup$
I can see that you would be able to pass to the complexification of your space and use spectral theorem from $mathbb {C}$. Follow ups would then be, prove the eigenvectors are (can be taken as) real. Furthermore, if there is a way to do this natively (without algebraic closure), and it isn't too painful, I'd like to see that.
$endgroup$
– Joshua Tilley
Dec 5 '18 at 18:34










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

By induction. Let $T$ be a real self-adjoint endomorphism of a real IPS, $V$. Let $lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $T$ since $T$ is self-adjoint, $T$ has a real eigenvalue. Then by definition, there is a $lambda$-eigenvector $v$ for $T$. Let $V'={v}^perp$. Then since $T$ is self-adjoint, if $win V'$, then $langle Tw,vrangle = langle w,Tvrangle=langle w,lambda vrangle= 0$. Thus $V'$ is $T$-invariant. Hence $V$ splits as a direct sum $Bbb{R}voplus V'$ and $T$ splits with it as $T=lambda oplus T|_{V'}$. Then by induction $T|_{V'}$ has an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors, and together with $v$, these give an orthonormal basis for $V$ consisting of eigenvectors of $T$.



This argument doesn't depend on the base field being $Bbb{R}$ or $Bbb{C}$, but I assumed it was $Bbb{R}$ to make the writing simpler.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Nice. As a note, the claim that $T$ has a real eigenvalue follows from passing to the complexification of $V$, using algebraic closure of $mathbb{C}$, and then using the fact that there its eigenvalues are real, and that complexifying doesn't change the eigenvalues, yes?
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua Tilley
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:37










  • $begingroup$
    @JoshuaTilley Oh yes, sorry.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:40











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3027445%2fspectral-theorem-over-mathbb-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

By induction. Let $T$ be a real self-adjoint endomorphism of a real IPS, $V$. Let $lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $T$ since $T$ is self-adjoint, $T$ has a real eigenvalue. Then by definition, there is a $lambda$-eigenvector $v$ for $T$. Let $V'={v}^perp$. Then since $T$ is self-adjoint, if $win V'$, then $langle Tw,vrangle = langle w,Tvrangle=langle w,lambda vrangle= 0$. Thus $V'$ is $T$-invariant. Hence $V$ splits as a direct sum $Bbb{R}voplus V'$ and $T$ splits with it as $T=lambda oplus T|_{V'}$. Then by induction $T|_{V'}$ has an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors, and together with $v$, these give an orthonormal basis for $V$ consisting of eigenvectors of $T$.



This argument doesn't depend on the base field being $Bbb{R}$ or $Bbb{C}$, but I assumed it was $Bbb{R}$ to make the writing simpler.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Nice. As a note, the claim that $T$ has a real eigenvalue follows from passing to the complexification of $V$, using algebraic closure of $mathbb{C}$, and then using the fact that there its eigenvalues are real, and that complexifying doesn't change the eigenvalues, yes?
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua Tilley
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:37










  • $begingroup$
    @JoshuaTilley Oh yes, sorry.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:40
















2












$begingroup$

By induction. Let $T$ be a real self-adjoint endomorphism of a real IPS, $V$. Let $lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $T$ since $T$ is self-adjoint, $T$ has a real eigenvalue. Then by definition, there is a $lambda$-eigenvector $v$ for $T$. Let $V'={v}^perp$. Then since $T$ is self-adjoint, if $win V'$, then $langle Tw,vrangle = langle w,Tvrangle=langle w,lambda vrangle= 0$. Thus $V'$ is $T$-invariant. Hence $V$ splits as a direct sum $Bbb{R}voplus V'$ and $T$ splits with it as $T=lambda oplus T|_{V'}$. Then by induction $T|_{V'}$ has an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors, and together with $v$, these give an orthonormal basis for $V$ consisting of eigenvectors of $T$.



This argument doesn't depend on the base field being $Bbb{R}$ or $Bbb{C}$, but I assumed it was $Bbb{R}$ to make the writing simpler.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Nice. As a note, the claim that $T$ has a real eigenvalue follows from passing to the complexification of $V$, using algebraic closure of $mathbb{C}$, and then using the fact that there its eigenvalues are real, and that complexifying doesn't change the eigenvalues, yes?
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua Tilley
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:37










  • $begingroup$
    @JoshuaTilley Oh yes, sorry.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:40














2












2








2





$begingroup$

By induction. Let $T$ be a real self-adjoint endomorphism of a real IPS, $V$. Let $lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $T$ since $T$ is self-adjoint, $T$ has a real eigenvalue. Then by definition, there is a $lambda$-eigenvector $v$ for $T$. Let $V'={v}^perp$. Then since $T$ is self-adjoint, if $win V'$, then $langle Tw,vrangle = langle w,Tvrangle=langle w,lambda vrangle= 0$. Thus $V'$ is $T$-invariant. Hence $V$ splits as a direct sum $Bbb{R}voplus V'$ and $T$ splits with it as $T=lambda oplus T|_{V'}$. Then by induction $T|_{V'}$ has an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors, and together with $v$, these give an orthonormal basis for $V$ consisting of eigenvectors of $T$.



This argument doesn't depend on the base field being $Bbb{R}$ or $Bbb{C}$, but I assumed it was $Bbb{R}$ to make the writing simpler.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



By induction. Let $T$ be a real self-adjoint endomorphism of a real IPS, $V$. Let $lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $T$ since $T$ is self-adjoint, $T$ has a real eigenvalue. Then by definition, there is a $lambda$-eigenvector $v$ for $T$. Let $V'={v}^perp$. Then since $T$ is self-adjoint, if $win V'$, then $langle Tw,vrangle = langle w,Tvrangle=langle w,lambda vrangle= 0$. Thus $V'$ is $T$-invariant. Hence $V$ splits as a direct sum $Bbb{R}voplus V'$ and $T$ splits with it as $T=lambda oplus T|_{V'}$. Then by induction $T|_{V'}$ has an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors, and together with $v$, these give an orthonormal basis for $V$ consisting of eigenvectors of $T$.



This argument doesn't depend on the base field being $Bbb{R}$ or $Bbb{C}$, but I assumed it was $Bbb{R}$ to make the writing simpler.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 5 '18 at 18:33









jgonjgon

14.2k22042




14.2k22042












  • $begingroup$
    Nice. As a note, the claim that $T$ has a real eigenvalue follows from passing to the complexification of $V$, using algebraic closure of $mathbb{C}$, and then using the fact that there its eigenvalues are real, and that complexifying doesn't change the eigenvalues, yes?
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua Tilley
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:37










  • $begingroup$
    @JoshuaTilley Oh yes, sorry.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:40


















  • $begingroup$
    Nice. As a note, the claim that $T$ has a real eigenvalue follows from passing to the complexification of $V$, using algebraic closure of $mathbb{C}$, and then using the fact that there its eigenvalues are real, and that complexifying doesn't change the eigenvalues, yes?
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua Tilley
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:37










  • $begingroup$
    @JoshuaTilley Oh yes, sorry.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:40
















$begingroup$
Nice. As a note, the claim that $T$ has a real eigenvalue follows from passing to the complexification of $V$, using algebraic closure of $mathbb{C}$, and then using the fact that there its eigenvalues are real, and that complexifying doesn't change the eigenvalues, yes?
$endgroup$
– Joshua Tilley
Dec 5 '18 at 18:37




$begingroup$
Nice. As a note, the claim that $T$ has a real eigenvalue follows from passing to the complexification of $V$, using algebraic closure of $mathbb{C}$, and then using the fact that there its eigenvalues are real, and that complexifying doesn't change the eigenvalues, yes?
$endgroup$
– Joshua Tilley
Dec 5 '18 at 18:37












$begingroup$
@JoshuaTilley Oh yes, sorry.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 5 '18 at 18:40




$begingroup$
@JoshuaTilley Oh yes, sorry.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 5 '18 at 18:40


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3027445%2fspectral-theorem-over-mathbb-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Change location of user folders through cmd or PowerShell?