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 only reference I know for precisely these matters is the handbook chapter MR2768702. Koellner, Peter; Woodin, W. Hugh. Large cardinals from determinacy. In Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, 1951–2119, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010. (Particularly, section 7.) For closely related topics, see also the work of Yong Cheng (and of Cheng and Schindler) on Harr […]

As other answers point out, yes, one needs choice. The popular/natural examples of models of ZF+DC where all sets of reals are measurable are models of determinacy, and Solovay's model. They are related in deep ways, actually, through large cardinals. (Under enough large cardinals, $L({\mathbb R})$ of $V$ is a model of determinacy and (something stronge […]

Throughout the question, we only consider primes of the form $3k+1$. A reference for cubic reciprocity is Ireland & Rosen's A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory. How can I count the relative density of those $p$ (of the form $3k+1$) such that the equation $2=3x^3$ has no solutions modulo $p$? Really, even pointers on how to say anything […]

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

Very briefly: Yes, there are several programs being developed that can be understood as pursuing new axioms for set theory. For the question itself of whether pursuing new axioms is a reasonably line of inquiry, see the following (in particular, the paper by John Steel): MR1814122 (2002a:03007). Feferman, Solomon; Friedman, Harvey M.; Maddy, Penelope; Steel, […]

This is a very interesting question and the subject of current research in set theory. There are, however, some caveats. Say that a set of reals is $\aleph_1$-dense if and only if it meets each interval in exactly $\aleph_1$-many points. It is easy to see that such sets exist, have size $\aleph_1$, and in fact, if $A$ is $\aleph_1$-dense, then between any tw […]

Say that the triangle is $ABC$. The vector giving the median from $A$ to $BC$ is $(AC+AB)/2$. Similarly, the one from $B$ to $AC$ is $(BA+BC)/2$, and the one from $C$ to $BA$ is $(CB+CA)/2$. Adding these, we get zero since $CB=-BC$, etc.

The usual definition of a series of nonnegative terms is as the supremum of the sums over finite subsets of the index set, $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i=\sup\biggl\{\sum_{j\in J}x_j:J\subseteq I\mbox{ is finite}\biggr\}.$$ (Note this definition does not quite work in general for series of positive and negative terms.) The point then is that is $a< x