Talk:Defective matrix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
Start Class
Mid Importance
 Field: Algebra

Singular matrix?[edit]

How does this relate to a matrix being singular? —Ben FrantzDale 22:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not. All four combinations (invertible + diagonalizable, invertible + defective, singular + diagonalizable, singlar + defective) are possible. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm overlooking something simple, but isn't a matrix singular iff its determinate is zero? The same appears from the examples to be true of a defective matrix. —Ben FrantzDale 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It's dangerous to generalize from one example :) Here are some others:
  •  \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} is invertible and defective
  •  \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} is singular and not defective
A matrix is singular iff one of its eigenvalues is zero. Whether a matrix is defective has to do with the multiplicities of the eigenvalues, and not with the location of the eigenvalues. This explains why the properties are independent. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Aah. thanks. —Ben FrantzDale 16:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I think this page should be merged with its antonym, diagonalizable matrix. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Singular example[edit]

Hi Plastikspork. I see you reverted my change to the simple example. Could you explain your reasoning? You said "It was already a simple example". My objection to the original example was that it was singular (not simple), which I thought might be confusing.--catslash (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert your example entirely. I just changed it to something a bit more simple. I agree that the singular one wasn't so good. This article actually needs a bit of help. There is no mention of the connection to the Jordan canonical form and the defective property of a general Jordan block. Thanks for your help. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't look very carefully at what you'd done - too hasty with my indignation. --catslash (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)