How can i solve the eigenvector equation for a $2 times 2$ matrix with eigenvalues $lambda = -1$ and...












0














where



$$A=begin{bmatrix}1&1\4&1end{bmatrix}$$



(For clarification, the materials i am using are telling me to use the following formula and to input the appropriate values for a, b, c and d but i am getting terribly confused.)



(a-λ)x+by=0



cx+(d-λ)y=0






linear-algebra eigenvalues-eigenvectors







share|cite|improve this question





























    0














    where



    $$A=begin{bmatrix}1&1\4&1end{bmatrix}$$



    (For clarification, the materials i am using are telling me to use the following formula and to input the appropriate values for a, b, c and d but i am getting terribly confused.)



    (a-λ)x+by=0



    cx+(d-λ)y=0






    linear-algebra eigenvalues-eigenvectors







    share|cite|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0


      1





      where



      $$A=begin{bmatrix}1&1\4&1end{bmatrix}$$



      (For clarification, the materials i am using are telling me to use the following formula and to input the appropriate values for a, b, c and d but i am getting terribly confused.)



      (a-λ)x+by=0



      cx+(d-λ)y=0






      linear-algebra eigenvalues-eigenvectors







      share|cite|improve this question















      where



      $$A=begin{bmatrix}1&1\4&1end{bmatrix}$$



      (For clarification, the materials i am using are telling me to use the following formula and to input the appropriate values for a, b, c and d but i am getting terribly confused.)



      (a-λ)x+by=0



      cx+(d-λ)y=0






      linear-algebra eigenvalues-eigenvectors




      linear-algebra eigenvalues-eigenvectors






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 2 at 20:51







      RocketKangaroo

















      asked Jan 2 at 19:19









      RocketKangarooRocketKangaroo

      334




      334






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          It's pretty straightforward; I'll work out the case $lambda = 3$; suppose



          $vec v = begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} tag 1$



          is the eigenvector corresponding to $lambda = 3$; then



          $A vec v = 3vec v; tag 2$



          we write this equation out using the given entries of $A$, $vec v$:



          $begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \ 4 & 1 end{bmatrix} begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} = 3 begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} = begin{pmatrix} 3a \ 3b end{pmatrix}, tag 3$



          or



          $a + b = 3a, tag 4$



          $4a + b = 3b; tag 5$



          from (4),



          $b = 2a; tag 6$



          it is expeditious at this point to observe we cannot have an eigenvector with $a = 0$, lest by (6) $b = 0$ as well, and thus



          $vec v = 0; tag 7$



          but eigenvectors are non-vanishing by definition. Thus



          $a ne 0, tag 8$



          and since eigenvectors are scalable, that is, the quality of "eigenvector-ness" is invariant under scalar multiplication, we may assume



          $a = 1; tag 9$



          then



          $b = 2a = 2, tag{10}$



          $vec v = begin{pmatrix} 1 \ 2 end{pmatrix}; tag{11}$



          it is easy to see that



          $4a + b = 4(1) + 2 = 6 = 3(2), tag{12}$



          so $vec v$ also satisfies (5).



          That's about it for the case $lambda = 3$; I leave the case $lambda = -1$ to the reader.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            Hi, could you expand on how you went from (3) to (6) please? I'm getting confused because the materials i am working from are telling me to use the following formula for a 2x2 matrix; (a-λ)x+by=0 and cx+(d-λ)y=0.
            – RocketKangaroo
            Jan 2 at 20:49












          • @RocketKangaroo: look at (4), which is just the first row of (3) written out. (4) says $a + b = 3a$; now subtract $a$ from both sides; you get (6), OK? The formula $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$ is also the first row of $Avec w = lambda vec w$ written out, with $A = begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}$ and $vec w = (x, y)^T$; from $A vec w = lambda vec w$ we get $ax + by = lambda a$ or $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$. It's just the general case of what I did. Does this help?
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 20:57












          • Yes indeed, i'm still a little confused on how you figured out a = 1 however, is this because 0 cannot exist as an eigenvector?
            – RocketKangaroo
            Jan 2 at 21:25










          • @RocketKangaroo: see (6)-(7) and the words between; they explain why $a ne 0$; then we just multiply $vec v$ by $a^{-1}$, whatever $a ne 0$ may be.
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 21:31










          • @RocketKangaroo: yes, because $0$ cannot be an eigenvector.
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 21:32



















          2














          To find an eigenvector of $lambda=3$ you need to solve :
          $$AX = lambda X $$
          $$begin{bmatrix}1&1\4&1end{bmatrix}begin{bmatrix}x_1\x_2end{bmatrix}=3begin{bmatrix}x_1\x_2end{bmatrix}$$
          $$x_1+x_2 = 3x_1 text{ and }4x_1+x_2=3x_2 $$
          Thus $X=begin{bmatrix}1\2end{bmatrix}$ is an eigenvector for $lambda=3$.



          You can do the same reasonning for $lambda=-1$.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            Gee, your answer is almost the same as mine! How could that possible be? ;) +1
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 19:51






          • 1




            Yours is way more detailed :)
            – Jennifer
            Jan 2 at 19:53










          • True enough. Maybe I talk too much! ;)
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 19:55



















          0














          The characteristic polynomial of $A$ is
          $$
          (lambda-1)^2-4=(lambda-1-2)(lambda-1+2)=(lambda-3)(lambda+1)
          $$
          Therefore $(A-3I)(A+I)=(A+I)(A-3I)=0$.
          So the columns of $(A-3I)$ are solutions of $(A+I)X=0$. And the columns of $(A+I)$ are solutions of $(A-3I)X=0$.



          Concretely,
          $$
          A-3I = left[begin{array}{cc}-2 & 1 \ 4 & -2end{array}right]
          $$
          So
          $$
          (A+I)left[begin{array}{c} 1 \ -2 end{array}right]=0
          $$
          And
          $$
          A+I = left[begin{array}{cc} 2 & 1 \ 4 & 2end{array}right]
          $$
          So
          $$
          (A-3I)left[begin{array}{c}1 \ 2end{array}right] = 0.
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            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%2f3059856%2fhow-can-i-solve-the-eigenvector-equation-for-a-2-times-2-matrix-with-eigenval%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3














            It's pretty straightforward; I'll work out the case $lambda = 3$; suppose



            $vec v = begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} tag 1$



            is the eigenvector corresponding to $lambda = 3$; then



            $A vec v = 3vec v; tag 2$



            we write this equation out using the given entries of $A$, $vec v$:



            $begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \ 4 & 1 end{bmatrix} begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} = 3 begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} = begin{pmatrix} 3a \ 3b end{pmatrix}, tag 3$



            or



            $a + b = 3a, tag 4$



            $4a + b = 3b; tag 5$



            from (4),



            $b = 2a; tag 6$



            it is expeditious at this point to observe we cannot have an eigenvector with $a = 0$, lest by (6) $b = 0$ as well, and thus



            $vec v = 0; tag 7$



            but eigenvectors are non-vanishing by definition. Thus



            $a ne 0, tag 8$



            and since eigenvectors are scalable, that is, the quality of "eigenvector-ness" is invariant under scalar multiplication, we may assume



            $a = 1; tag 9$



            then



            $b = 2a = 2, tag{10}$



            $vec v = begin{pmatrix} 1 \ 2 end{pmatrix}; tag{11}$



            it is easy to see that



            $4a + b = 4(1) + 2 = 6 = 3(2), tag{12}$



            so $vec v$ also satisfies (5).



            That's about it for the case $lambda = 3$; I leave the case $lambda = -1$ to the reader.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Hi, could you expand on how you went from (3) to (6) please? I'm getting confused because the materials i am working from are telling me to use the following formula for a 2x2 matrix; (a-λ)x+by=0 and cx+(d-λ)y=0.
              – RocketKangaroo
              Jan 2 at 20:49












            • @RocketKangaroo: look at (4), which is just the first row of (3) written out. (4) says $a + b = 3a$; now subtract $a$ from both sides; you get (6), OK? The formula $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$ is also the first row of $Avec w = lambda vec w$ written out, with $A = begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}$ and $vec w = (x, y)^T$; from $A vec w = lambda vec w$ we get $ax + by = lambda a$ or $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$. It's just the general case of what I did. Does this help?
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 20:57












            • Yes indeed, i'm still a little confused on how you figured out a = 1 however, is this because 0 cannot exist as an eigenvector?
              – RocketKangaroo
              Jan 2 at 21:25










            • @RocketKangaroo: see (6)-(7) and the words between; they explain why $a ne 0$; then we just multiply $vec v$ by $a^{-1}$, whatever $a ne 0$ may be.
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 21:31










            • @RocketKangaroo: yes, because $0$ cannot be an eigenvector.
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 21:32
















            3














            It's pretty straightforward; I'll work out the case $lambda = 3$; suppose



            $vec v = begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} tag 1$



            is the eigenvector corresponding to $lambda = 3$; then



            $A vec v = 3vec v; tag 2$



            we write this equation out using the given entries of $A$, $vec v$:



            $begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \ 4 & 1 end{bmatrix} begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} = 3 begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} = begin{pmatrix} 3a \ 3b end{pmatrix}, tag 3$



            or



            $a + b = 3a, tag 4$



            $4a + b = 3b; tag 5$



            from (4),



            $b = 2a; tag 6$



            it is expeditious at this point to observe we cannot have an eigenvector with $a = 0$, lest by (6) $b = 0$ as well, and thus



            $vec v = 0; tag 7$



            but eigenvectors are non-vanishing by definition. Thus



            $a ne 0, tag 8$



            and since eigenvectors are scalable, that is, the quality of "eigenvector-ness" is invariant under scalar multiplication, we may assume



            $a = 1; tag 9$



            then



            $b = 2a = 2, tag{10}$



            $vec v = begin{pmatrix} 1 \ 2 end{pmatrix}; tag{11}$



            it is easy to see that



            $4a + b = 4(1) + 2 = 6 = 3(2), tag{12}$



            so $vec v$ also satisfies (5).



            That's about it for the case $lambda = 3$; I leave the case $lambda = -1$ to the reader.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Hi, could you expand on how you went from (3) to (6) please? I'm getting confused because the materials i am working from are telling me to use the following formula for a 2x2 matrix; (a-λ)x+by=0 and cx+(d-λ)y=0.
              – RocketKangaroo
              Jan 2 at 20:49












            • @RocketKangaroo: look at (4), which is just the first row of (3) written out. (4) says $a + b = 3a$; now subtract $a$ from both sides; you get (6), OK? The formula $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$ is also the first row of $Avec w = lambda vec w$ written out, with $A = begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}$ and $vec w = (x, y)^T$; from $A vec w = lambda vec w$ we get $ax + by = lambda a$ or $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$. It's just the general case of what I did. Does this help?
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 20:57












            • Yes indeed, i'm still a little confused on how you figured out a = 1 however, is this because 0 cannot exist as an eigenvector?
              – RocketKangaroo
              Jan 2 at 21:25










            • @RocketKangaroo: see (6)-(7) and the words between; they explain why $a ne 0$; then we just multiply $vec v$ by $a^{-1}$, whatever $a ne 0$ may be.
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 21:31










            • @RocketKangaroo: yes, because $0$ cannot be an eigenvector.
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 21:32














            3












            3








            3






            It's pretty straightforward; I'll work out the case $lambda = 3$; suppose



            $vec v = begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} tag 1$



            is the eigenvector corresponding to $lambda = 3$; then



            $A vec v = 3vec v; tag 2$



            we write this equation out using the given entries of $A$, $vec v$:



            $begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \ 4 & 1 end{bmatrix} begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} = 3 begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} = begin{pmatrix} 3a \ 3b end{pmatrix}, tag 3$



            or



            $a + b = 3a, tag 4$



            $4a + b = 3b; tag 5$



            from (4),



            $b = 2a; tag 6$



            it is expeditious at this point to observe we cannot have an eigenvector with $a = 0$, lest by (6) $b = 0$ as well, and thus



            $vec v = 0; tag 7$



            but eigenvectors are non-vanishing by definition. Thus



            $a ne 0, tag 8$



            and since eigenvectors are scalable, that is, the quality of "eigenvector-ness" is invariant under scalar multiplication, we may assume



            $a = 1; tag 9$



            then



            $b = 2a = 2, tag{10}$



            $vec v = begin{pmatrix} 1 \ 2 end{pmatrix}; tag{11}$



            it is easy to see that



            $4a + b = 4(1) + 2 = 6 = 3(2), tag{12}$



            so $vec v$ also satisfies (5).



            That's about it for the case $lambda = 3$; I leave the case $lambda = -1$ to the reader.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            It's pretty straightforward; I'll work out the case $lambda = 3$; suppose



            $vec v = begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} tag 1$



            is the eigenvector corresponding to $lambda = 3$; then



            $A vec v = 3vec v; tag 2$



            we write this equation out using the given entries of $A$, $vec v$:



            $begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \ 4 & 1 end{bmatrix} begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} = 3 begin{pmatrix} a \ b end{pmatrix} = begin{pmatrix} 3a \ 3b end{pmatrix}, tag 3$



            or



            $a + b = 3a, tag 4$



            $4a + b = 3b; tag 5$



            from (4),



            $b = 2a; tag 6$



            it is expeditious at this point to observe we cannot have an eigenvector with $a = 0$, lest by (6) $b = 0$ as well, and thus



            $vec v = 0; tag 7$



            but eigenvectors are non-vanishing by definition. Thus



            $a ne 0, tag 8$



            and since eigenvectors are scalable, that is, the quality of "eigenvector-ness" is invariant under scalar multiplication, we may assume



            $a = 1; tag 9$



            then



            $b = 2a = 2, tag{10}$



            $vec v = begin{pmatrix} 1 \ 2 end{pmatrix}; tag{11}$



            it is easy to see that



            $4a + b = 4(1) + 2 = 6 = 3(2), tag{12}$



            so $vec v$ also satisfies (5).



            That's about it for the case $lambda = 3$; I leave the case $lambda = -1$ to the reader.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Jan 2 at 19:50









            Robert LewisRobert Lewis

            43.9k22963




            43.9k22963








            • 1




              Hi, could you expand on how you went from (3) to (6) please? I'm getting confused because the materials i am working from are telling me to use the following formula for a 2x2 matrix; (a-λ)x+by=0 and cx+(d-λ)y=0.
              – RocketKangaroo
              Jan 2 at 20:49












            • @RocketKangaroo: look at (4), which is just the first row of (3) written out. (4) says $a + b = 3a$; now subtract $a$ from both sides; you get (6), OK? The formula $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$ is also the first row of $Avec w = lambda vec w$ written out, with $A = begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}$ and $vec w = (x, y)^T$; from $A vec w = lambda vec w$ we get $ax + by = lambda a$ or $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$. It's just the general case of what I did. Does this help?
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 20:57












            • Yes indeed, i'm still a little confused on how you figured out a = 1 however, is this because 0 cannot exist as an eigenvector?
              – RocketKangaroo
              Jan 2 at 21:25










            • @RocketKangaroo: see (6)-(7) and the words between; they explain why $a ne 0$; then we just multiply $vec v$ by $a^{-1}$, whatever $a ne 0$ may be.
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 21:31










            • @RocketKangaroo: yes, because $0$ cannot be an eigenvector.
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 21:32














            • 1




              Hi, could you expand on how you went from (3) to (6) please? I'm getting confused because the materials i am working from are telling me to use the following formula for a 2x2 matrix; (a-λ)x+by=0 and cx+(d-λ)y=0.
              – RocketKangaroo
              Jan 2 at 20:49












            • @RocketKangaroo: look at (4), which is just the first row of (3) written out. (4) says $a + b = 3a$; now subtract $a$ from both sides; you get (6), OK? The formula $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$ is also the first row of $Avec w = lambda vec w$ written out, with $A = begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}$ and $vec w = (x, y)^T$; from $A vec w = lambda vec w$ we get $ax + by = lambda a$ or $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$. It's just the general case of what I did. Does this help?
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 20:57












            • Yes indeed, i'm still a little confused on how you figured out a = 1 however, is this because 0 cannot exist as an eigenvector?
              – RocketKangaroo
              Jan 2 at 21:25










            • @RocketKangaroo: see (6)-(7) and the words between; they explain why $a ne 0$; then we just multiply $vec v$ by $a^{-1}$, whatever $a ne 0$ may be.
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 21:31










            • @RocketKangaroo: yes, because $0$ cannot be an eigenvector.
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 21:32








            1




            1




            Hi, could you expand on how you went from (3) to (6) please? I'm getting confused because the materials i am working from are telling me to use the following formula for a 2x2 matrix; (a-λ)x+by=0 and cx+(d-λ)y=0.
            – RocketKangaroo
            Jan 2 at 20:49






            Hi, could you expand on how you went from (3) to (6) please? I'm getting confused because the materials i am working from are telling me to use the following formula for a 2x2 matrix; (a-λ)x+by=0 and cx+(d-λ)y=0.
            – RocketKangaroo
            Jan 2 at 20:49














            @RocketKangaroo: look at (4), which is just the first row of (3) written out. (4) says $a + b = 3a$; now subtract $a$ from both sides; you get (6), OK? The formula $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$ is also the first row of $Avec w = lambda vec w$ written out, with $A = begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}$ and $vec w = (x, y)^T$; from $A vec w = lambda vec w$ we get $ax + by = lambda a$ or $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$. It's just the general case of what I did. Does this help?
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 20:57






            @RocketKangaroo: look at (4), which is just the first row of (3) written out. (4) says $a + b = 3a$; now subtract $a$ from both sides; you get (6), OK? The formula $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$ is also the first row of $Avec w = lambda vec w$ written out, with $A = begin{bmatrix} a & b \ c & d end{bmatrix}$ and $vec w = (x, y)^T$; from $A vec w = lambda vec w$ we get $ax + by = lambda a$ or $(a - lambda)x + by = 0$. It's just the general case of what I did. Does this help?
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 20:57














            Yes indeed, i'm still a little confused on how you figured out a = 1 however, is this because 0 cannot exist as an eigenvector?
            – RocketKangaroo
            Jan 2 at 21:25




            Yes indeed, i'm still a little confused on how you figured out a = 1 however, is this because 0 cannot exist as an eigenvector?
            – RocketKangaroo
            Jan 2 at 21:25












            @RocketKangaroo: see (6)-(7) and the words between; they explain why $a ne 0$; then we just multiply $vec v$ by $a^{-1}$, whatever $a ne 0$ may be.
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 21:31




            @RocketKangaroo: see (6)-(7) and the words between; they explain why $a ne 0$; then we just multiply $vec v$ by $a^{-1}$, whatever $a ne 0$ may be.
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 21:31












            @RocketKangaroo: yes, because $0$ cannot be an eigenvector.
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 21:32




            @RocketKangaroo: yes, because $0$ cannot be an eigenvector.
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 21:32











            2














            To find an eigenvector of $lambda=3$ you need to solve :
            $$AX = lambda X $$
            $$begin{bmatrix}1&1\4&1end{bmatrix}begin{bmatrix}x_1\x_2end{bmatrix}=3begin{bmatrix}x_1\x_2end{bmatrix}$$
            $$x_1+x_2 = 3x_1 text{ and }4x_1+x_2=3x_2 $$
            Thus $X=begin{bmatrix}1\2end{bmatrix}$ is an eigenvector for $lambda=3$.



            You can do the same reasonning for $lambda=-1$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Gee, your answer is almost the same as mine! How could that possible be? ;) +1
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 19:51






            • 1




              Yours is way more detailed :)
              – Jennifer
              Jan 2 at 19:53










            • True enough. Maybe I talk too much! ;)
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 19:55
















            2














            To find an eigenvector of $lambda=3$ you need to solve :
            $$AX = lambda X $$
            $$begin{bmatrix}1&1\4&1end{bmatrix}begin{bmatrix}x_1\x_2end{bmatrix}=3begin{bmatrix}x_1\x_2end{bmatrix}$$
            $$x_1+x_2 = 3x_1 text{ and }4x_1+x_2=3x_2 $$
            Thus $X=begin{bmatrix}1\2end{bmatrix}$ is an eigenvector for $lambda=3$.



            You can do the same reasonning for $lambda=-1$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Gee, your answer is almost the same as mine! How could that possible be? ;) +1
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 19:51






            • 1




              Yours is way more detailed :)
              – Jennifer
              Jan 2 at 19:53










            • True enough. Maybe I talk too much! ;)
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 19:55














            2












            2








            2






            To find an eigenvector of $lambda=3$ you need to solve :
            $$AX = lambda X $$
            $$begin{bmatrix}1&1\4&1end{bmatrix}begin{bmatrix}x_1\x_2end{bmatrix}=3begin{bmatrix}x_1\x_2end{bmatrix}$$
            $$x_1+x_2 = 3x_1 text{ and }4x_1+x_2=3x_2 $$
            Thus $X=begin{bmatrix}1\2end{bmatrix}$ is an eigenvector for $lambda=3$.



            You can do the same reasonning for $lambda=-1$.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            To find an eigenvector of $lambda=3$ you need to solve :
            $$AX = lambda X $$
            $$begin{bmatrix}1&1\4&1end{bmatrix}begin{bmatrix}x_1\x_2end{bmatrix}=3begin{bmatrix}x_1\x_2end{bmatrix}$$
            $$x_1+x_2 = 3x_1 text{ and }4x_1+x_2=3x_2 $$
            Thus $X=begin{bmatrix}1\2end{bmatrix}$ is an eigenvector for $lambda=3$.



            You can do the same reasonning for $lambda=-1$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Jan 2 at 19:38









            JenniferJennifer

            8,41721737




            8,41721737








            • 1




              Gee, your answer is almost the same as mine! How could that possible be? ;) +1
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 19:51






            • 1




              Yours is way more detailed :)
              – Jennifer
              Jan 2 at 19:53










            • True enough. Maybe I talk too much! ;)
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 19:55














            • 1




              Gee, your answer is almost the same as mine! How could that possible be? ;) +1
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 19:51






            • 1




              Yours is way more detailed :)
              – Jennifer
              Jan 2 at 19:53










            • True enough. Maybe I talk too much! ;)
              – Robert Lewis
              Jan 2 at 19:55








            1




            1




            Gee, your answer is almost the same as mine! How could that possible be? ;) +1
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 19:51




            Gee, your answer is almost the same as mine! How could that possible be? ;) +1
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 19:51




            1




            1




            Yours is way more detailed :)
            – Jennifer
            Jan 2 at 19:53




            Yours is way more detailed :)
            – Jennifer
            Jan 2 at 19:53












            True enough. Maybe I talk too much! ;)
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 19:55




            True enough. Maybe I talk too much! ;)
            – Robert Lewis
            Jan 2 at 19:55











            0














            The characteristic polynomial of $A$ is
            $$
            (lambda-1)^2-4=(lambda-1-2)(lambda-1+2)=(lambda-3)(lambda+1)
            $$
            Therefore $(A-3I)(A+I)=(A+I)(A-3I)=0$.
            So the columns of $(A-3I)$ are solutions of $(A+I)X=0$. And the columns of $(A+I)$ are solutions of $(A-3I)X=0$.



            Concretely,
            $$
            A-3I = left[begin{array}{cc}-2 & 1 \ 4 & -2end{array}right]
            $$
            So
            $$
            (A+I)left[begin{array}{c} 1 \ -2 end{array}right]=0
            $$
            And
            $$
            A+I = left[begin{array}{cc} 2 & 1 \ 4 & 2end{array}right]
            $$
            So
            $$
            (A-3I)left[begin{array}{c}1 \ 2end{array}right] = 0.
            $$






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              0














              The characteristic polynomial of $A$ is
              $$
              (lambda-1)^2-4=(lambda-1-2)(lambda-1+2)=(lambda-3)(lambda+1)
              $$
              Therefore $(A-3I)(A+I)=(A+I)(A-3I)=0$.
              So the columns of $(A-3I)$ are solutions of $(A+I)X=0$. And the columns of $(A+I)$ are solutions of $(A-3I)X=0$.



              Concretely,
              $$
              A-3I = left[begin{array}{cc}-2 & 1 \ 4 & -2end{array}right]
              $$
              So
              $$
              (A+I)left[begin{array}{c} 1 \ -2 end{array}right]=0
              $$
              And
              $$
              A+I = left[begin{array}{cc} 2 & 1 \ 4 & 2end{array}right]
              $$
              So
              $$
              (A-3I)left[begin{array}{c}1 \ 2end{array}right] = 0.
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                0












                0








                0






                The characteristic polynomial of $A$ is
                $$
                (lambda-1)^2-4=(lambda-1-2)(lambda-1+2)=(lambda-3)(lambda+1)
                $$
                Therefore $(A-3I)(A+I)=(A+I)(A-3I)=0$.
                So the columns of $(A-3I)$ are solutions of $(A+I)X=0$. And the columns of $(A+I)$ are solutions of $(A-3I)X=0$.



                Concretely,
                $$
                A-3I = left[begin{array}{cc}-2 & 1 \ 4 & -2end{array}right]
                $$
                So
                $$
                (A+I)left[begin{array}{c} 1 \ -2 end{array}right]=0
                $$
                And
                $$
                A+I = left[begin{array}{cc} 2 & 1 \ 4 & 2end{array}right]
                $$
                So
                $$
                (A-3I)left[begin{array}{c}1 \ 2end{array}right] = 0.
                $$






                share|cite|improve this answer












                The characteristic polynomial of $A$ is
                $$
                (lambda-1)^2-4=(lambda-1-2)(lambda-1+2)=(lambda-3)(lambda+1)
                $$
                Therefore $(A-3I)(A+I)=(A+I)(A-3I)=0$.
                So the columns of $(A-3I)$ are solutions of $(A+I)X=0$. And the columns of $(A+I)$ are solutions of $(A-3I)X=0$.



                Concretely,
                $$
                A-3I = left[begin{array}{cc}-2 & 1 \ 4 & -2end{array}right]
                $$
                So
                $$
                (A+I)left[begin{array}{c} 1 \ -2 end{array}right]=0
                $$
                And
                $$
                A+I = left[begin{array}{cc} 2 & 1 \ 4 & 2end{array}right]
                $$
                So
                $$
                (A-3I)left[begin{array}{c}1 \ 2end{array}right] = 0.
                $$







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jan 4 at 5:13









                DisintegratingByPartsDisintegratingByParts

                58.7k42579




                58.7k42579






























                    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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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.


                    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%2f3059856%2fhow-can-i-solve-the-eigenvector-equation-for-a-2-times-2-matrix-with-eigenval%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

                    An IMO inspired problem

                    Image
                    14 4 This problem from IMO 1988 is said to be one of the most elegant ones in functional equations. Problem : The function $f$ is defined on the set of all positive integers as follows: begin{align} f(1) = 1, f(3) &= 3, f(2n) = f(n), \ f(4n+1) &= 2f(2n+1) - f(n), \ f(4n+3) &= 3 f(2n+1) - 2f(n) end{align} Find the number of $n$ with $f(n) = n, 1 leq n leq 1988$. The main idea towards the solution is realizing that these conditions stand for the fact that $f(n)$ just reverses the digits in the binary representation of the number $n$. So, essentially the solution is finding the number of binary pallindromes $leq 1988_{10}$. My question is the following : How to reformulate the problem so that $f(n)$ reverses the digits of $n$ in its ternary representation. Or even better, can we reformulate it for a
                    Read more

                    Management

                    Image
                    Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Manager" redirects here. For other uses, see Management (disambiguation) and Manager (disambiguation). An organization chart for the United States Coast Guard shows the hierarchy of managerial roles in that organization. Business administration Management of a business Accounting Management accounting Financial accounting Financial audit Business entities Cooperative Corporation Limited liability company Partnership Sole proprietorship State-owned enterprise Corporate governance Annual general meeting Board of directors Supervisory board Advisory board Audit committee Corporate law Commercial law Constitutional documents Contract Corporate crime Corporate liability Insolvency law International trade law Mergers and acquisitions Economics Commodity Pu
                    Read more

                    Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?

                    Image
                    36 3 The question Has there ever been a military combat going on around an active (running or in outage but not decommissioned) commercial nuclear power plant? Or dangerously near it? If yes, how did the plant and its personnel fare in such situation? Why I ask Let's assume for the scope of this question modern commercial nuclear power plants (CANDU, PWR, BWR of generation II plus all of gen III and newer) are usually reasonably safe to operate given that the engineering has been done right and there is a whole cohort of very well trained personnel on-site at all times, well rested and with considerable resources on their hands. Things hard to get with an armed conflict like the recent Syrian war raging around. I can't seem to find any reference or a comprehensive article about this, hence this question.
                    Read more