Skip to main content

linear algebra - The algebraic solution and numerical solutions for eigenvectors are different. Why?



I find that the algebraic solution for the Eigenvectors of a 3x3 matrix is not correct when compared to the numerical solution. I don't see why ?


Clear[a, b, c, d, q, z]  
q = {{-a, b, 0},{a, -b - c, d},{0, c, -d}};
z = Eigenvectors[q];
a = 2;
b = 0.1;
c = 3;
d = 1;
MatrixForm[z]
MatrixForm[Eigenvectors[q]]


Answer



There are several reasons. As jkuczm pointed out, symbolic eigenvectors are not normalized. Why? Simply because normalizing them symbolically would render the output unreadible while it would not provide any new information. This is the first reason.


The second one is the ordering of the eigenvectors. For numerical input, the eigenvectors are ordered such that their corresponding eigenvalues are ordered by their modulus in decending order. In general, it is not feasible to order symbolic eigenvalues by their modulus: It is just to complicated or it may be impossible without further knowledge about the occuring symbols.


The third reason is that there is no canonical direction for eigenvectors; even algorithms that return normalized eigenvectors may differ in the way of "distributing signs".


This all reflects that results returned by Eigenvectors represents certain vector spaces. If your input matrix has multiple eigenvalues then the respective eigenspaces have dimensions greater than one. In that case, there is no way at all to standardize the result and the best you can expect is to obtain just any basis for each eigenspace.


In your particular example, you can normalize and order your result by the following


Clear[a, b, c, d, q, z]
q = {{-a, b, 0}, {a, -b - c, d}, {0, c, -d}};
z = Eigenvectors[q];
\[Lambda] = Eigenvalues[q];

a = 2;
b = 0.1;
c = 3;
d = 1;
MatrixForm[Map[Normalize, z][[Ordering[-Abs[\[Lambda]]]]]]
MatrixForm[Eigenvectors[q]]

But as you can see, the eigenbases may still differ by sign.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...