How can we manipulate non-commutative equations? (See question 3 below)
It seems in the formula for Diagonalization, $A=PDP^{-1} \rightarrow AP=PD$, does one just multiply both sides by P?
Main question: How do we manipulate it instead to $PAP^{-1}=D$?
2026-04-07 04:54:58.1775537698
How do we algebraically manipulate non-commutative equations? (Ie. Diagonalization: $A=PDP^{-1} \rightarrow AP=PD$)
87 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LINEAR-ALGEBRA
- An underdetermined system derived for rotated coordinate system
- How to prove the following equality with matrix norm?
- Alternate basis for a subspace of $\mathcal P_3(\mathbb R)$?
- Why the derivative of $T(\gamma(s))$ is $T$ if this composition is not a linear transformation?
- Why is necessary ask $F$ to be infinite in order to obtain: $ f(v)=0$ for all $ f\in V^* \implies v=0 $
- I don't understand this $\left(\left[T\right]^B_C\right)^{-1}=\left[T^{-1}\right]^C_B$
- Summation in subsets
- $C=AB-BA$. If $CA=AC$, then $C$ is not invertible.
- Basis of span in $R^4$
- Prove if A is regular skew symmetric, I+A is regular (with obstacles)
Related Questions in MATRICES
- How to prove the following equality with matrix norm?
- I don't understand this $\left(\left[T\right]^B_C\right)^{-1}=\left[T^{-1}\right]^C_B$
- Powers of a simple matrix and Catalan numbers
- Gradient of Cost Function To Find Matrix Factorization
- Particular commutator matrix is strictly lower triangular, or at least annihilates last base vector
- Inverse of a triangular-by-block $3 \times 3$ matrix
- Form square matrix out of a non square matrix to calculate determinant
- Extending a linear action to monomials of higher degree
- Eiegenspectrum on subtracting a diagonal matrix
- For a $G$ a finite subgroup of $\mathbb{GL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ of rank $3$, show that $f^2 = \textrm{Id}$ for all $f \in G$
Related Questions in MATRIX-EQUATIONS
- tensor differential equation
- Can it be proved that non-symmetric matrix $A$ will always have real eigen values?.
- Real eigenvalues of a non-symmetric matrix $A$ ?.
- How to differentiate sum of matrix multiplication?
- Do all 2-variable polynomials split into linear factors over the space of $2 \times 2$ complex matrices?
- Big picture discussion for iterative linear solvers?
- Matrix transformations, Eigenvectors and Eigenvalues
- Jordan chevaley decomposition and cyclic vectors
- If $A$ is a $5×4$ matrix and $B$ is a $4×5$ matrix
- Simplify $x^TA(AA^T+I)^{-1}A^Tx$
Related Questions in DIAGONALIZATION
- Determining a $4\times4$ matrix knowing $3$ of its $4$ eigenvectors and eigenvalues
- Show that $A^m=I_n$ is diagonalizable
- Simultaneous diagonalization on more than two matrices
- Diagonalization and change of basis
- Is this $3 \times 3$ matrix diagonalizable?
- Matrix $A\in \mathbb{R}^{4\times4}$ has eigenvectors $\bf{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4}$ satisfying $\bf{Au_1=5u_1,Au_2=9u_2}$ & $\bf{Au_3=20u_3}$. Find $A\bf{w}$.
- Block diagonalizing a Hermitian matrix
- undiagonizable matrix and annhilating polynom claims
- Show that if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of matrix $A$ and $B$, then it is an eigenvalue of $B^{-1}AB$
- Is a complex symmetric square matrix with zero diagonal diagonalizable?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
First of all, it's not the equation that is non-commutative, but rather the operation used in the equation.
As to the main point, there's actually nothing special here, we just have to be a bit more careful. The basic logical apparatus of equality (see here for more on this) tells us that given any well-defined function $F$ and any true equation $s=t$, the equation $F(s)=F(t)$ is again a true equation. In particular, this applies to $F(x)=xy$ for a fixed $y$, as well as to $G(x)=yx$ for a fixed $y$. The non-commutativity of multiplication in our current setting means that $F$ and $G$ are not the same in general, but that's fine.
So, looking at your particular example, we argue as follows:
We start with $A=PDP^{-1}$ by assumption.
We now apply the principle above with $F(x)=xP$. This gives $$F(A)=F(PDP^{-1})\quad\implies \quad AP=PDP^{-1}P\quad\implies AP=PD.$$
Now we are still being a bit informal - we're being rather cavalier with respect to the associative property of multiplication (which still holds). Ultimately a fully formal approach will involve some parentheses-juggling. But the above is perfectly adequate for the topic.
Note that we didn't simply "multiply by $P$" - in the absence of commutativity, "multiplication by $P$" isn't well-defined. Our $F$ in this case was multiplication on the right by $P$. We could also have multiplied by $P$ on the left on both sides of the equation, getting $$PA=P^2DP^{-1}.$$ However, we could not multiply by $P$ on the left in the left hand side and on the right on the right hand side: $PA=PD$ is not something we can conclude from $A=PDP^{-1}$ (without further hypotheses, at least).