Limit of matrix $A$ raised to power of $n$, as $n$ approaches infinity.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I understand that the limit of n approaching infinity of a matrix $A^n$, can be computed, in some cases, by looking at the diagonalization of that matrix, and then looking at the limit of n going to infinity of the resulting diagonal matrix, $D$, whose elements are raised to the power n.
What I do not understand is when we do not raise the matrix, call it $P$, consisting of the eigenvectors of $A$, and its inverse, to the power of n as well?
So:
$ P^-1AP = D $
$A = PDP^-1 $
$A^n = (PDP^-1)^n$
$A^n = P^nD^n(P^-1)^n$
Why do the matrices $P^n$ and $(P^-1)^n$ not have to be taken into account when looking at the limit of n going to infinity?
linear-algebra matrices limits
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I understand that the limit of n approaching infinity of a matrix $A^n$, can be computed, in some cases, by looking at the diagonalization of that matrix, and then looking at the limit of n going to infinity of the resulting diagonal matrix, $D$, whose elements are raised to the power n.
What I do not understand is when we do not raise the matrix, call it $P$, consisting of the eigenvectors of $A$, and its inverse, to the power of n as well?
So:
$ P^-1AP = D $
$A = PDP^-1 $
$A^n = (PDP^-1)^n$
$A^n = P^nD^n(P^-1)^n$
Why do the matrices $P^n$ and $(P^-1)^n$ not have to be taken into account when looking at the limit of n going to infinity?
linear-algebra matrices limits
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I understand that the limit of n approaching infinity of a matrix $A^n$, can be computed, in some cases, by looking at the diagonalization of that matrix, and then looking at the limit of n going to infinity of the resulting diagonal matrix, $D$, whose elements are raised to the power n.
What I do not understand is when we do not raise the matrix, call it $P$, consisting of the eigenvectors of $A$, and its inverse, to the power of n as well?
So:
$ P^-1AP = D $
$A = PDP^-1 $
$A^n = (PDP^-1)^n$
$A^n = P^nD^n(P^-1)^n$
Why do the matrices $P^n$ and $(P^-1)^n$ not have to be taken into account when looking at the limit of n going to infinity?
linear-algebra matrices limits
I understand that the limit of n approaching infinity of a matrix $A^n$, can be computed, in some cases, by looking at the diagonalization of that matrix, and then looking at the limit of n going to infinity of the resulting diagonal matrix, $D$, whose elements are raised to the power n.
What I do not understand is when we do not raise the matrix, call it $P$, consisting of the eigenvectors of $A$, and its inverse, to the power of n as well?
So:
$ P^-1AP = D $
$A = PDP^-1 $
$A^n = (PDP^-1)^n$
$A^n = P^nD^n(P^-1)^n$
Why do the matrices $P^n$ and $(P^-1)^n$ not have to be taken into account when looking at the limit of n going to infinity?
linear-algebra matrices limits
linear-algebra matrices limits
edited Nov 19 at 17:41
Xander Henderson
13.8k93552
13.8k93552
asked Nov 18 at 22:26
Tyna
826
826
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
24
down vote
In general, the statement
$$
(AB)^n=A^nB^n
$$
is false for square matrices. So it's not true in general that, from $A=PDP^-1$ it follows that $A^n=P^nD^n(P^-1)^n$.
Rather you should note that
$$
A^2=(PDP^-1)(PDP^-1)=PDP^-1PDP^-1=PDDP^-1=PD^2P^-1
$$
and, by easy induction,
$$
A^n=PD^nP^-1
$$
for every $n$. Do you see the difference?
Now, in order to compute the limit, it is sufficient to compute the limit of $D^n$, because matrix multiplication is continuous.
Perhaps it is worth remarking that we do still have $P$ and $P^-$ to take into account, but that is straightforward and we do not have to worry what $P^n$ might be.
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:23
@PJTraill Isn't the “Rather” part covering it?
– egreg
Nov 19 at 14:25
Formally it certainly does, but given the level of the questioner I thought one might make that explicit (though an alternative would be to nudge them to chew on some thought inclining them in that direction).
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:26
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
We have that
$$A = PDP^-1implies A^2 = PDP^-1 PDP^-1= PD(P^-1P)DP^-1= PD (I)DP^-1=PD^2P^-1$$
and so on we can generalize the result rigorously for any $n$ by induction.
4
thank you! the "inner" factors on $P$ and $P^-1$ will cancel and you'll only be left with the one $P$ and its inverse.
– Tyna
Nov 18 at 22:32
2
@Tyna Yes exactly and then we can generalize that for any $n$ (rigoursly by induction).
– gimusi
Nov 18 at 22:34
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
24
down vote
In general, the statement
$$
(AB)^n=A^nB^n
$$
is false for square matrices. So it's not true in general that, from $A=PDP^-1$ it follows that $A^n=P^nD^n(P^-1)^n$.
Rather you should note that
$$
A^2=(PDP^-1)(PDP^-1)=PDP^-1PDP^-1=PDDP^-1=PD^2P^-1
$$
and, by easy induction,
$$
A^n=PD^nP^-1
$$
for every $n$. Do you see the difference?
Now, in order to compute the limit, it is sufficient to compute the limit of $D^n$, because matrix multiplication is continuous.
Perhaps it is worth remarking that we do still have $P$ and $P^-$ to take into account, but that is straightforward and we do not have to worry what $P^n$ might be.
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:23
@PJTraill Isn't the “Rather” part covering it?
– egreg
Nov 19 at 14:25
Formally it certainly does, but given the level of the questioner I thought one might make that explicit (though an alternative would be to nudge them to chew on some thought inclining them in that direction).
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:26
add a comment |
up vote
24
down vote
In general, the statement
$$
(AB)^n=A^nB^n
$$
is false for square matrices. So it's not true in general that, from $A=PDP^-1$ it follows that $A^n=P^nD^n(P^-1)^n$.
Rather you should note that
$$
A^2=(PDP^-1)(PDP^-1)=PDP^-1PDP^-1=PDDP^-1=PD^2P^-1
$$
and, by easy induction,
$$
A^n=PD^nP^-1
$$
for every $n$. Do you see the difference?
Now, in order to compute the limit, it is sufficient to compute the limit of $D^n$, because matrix multiplication is continuous.
Perhaps it is worth remarking that we do still have $P$ and $P^-$ to take into account, but that is straightforward and we do not have to worry what $P^n$ might be.
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:23
@PJTraill Isn't the “Rather” part covering it?
– egreg
Nov 19 at 14:25
Formally it certainly does, but given the level of the questioner I thought one might make that explicit (though an alternative would be to nudge them to chew on some thought inclining them in that direction).
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:26
add a comment |
up vote
24
down vote
up vote
24
down vote
In general, the statement
$$
(AB)^n=A^nB^n
$$
is false for square matrices. So it's not true in general that, from $A=PDP^-1$ it follows that $A^n=P^nD^n(P^-1)^n$.
Rather you should note that
$$
A^2=(PDP^-1)(PDP^-1)=PDP^-1PDP^-1=PDDP^-1=PD^2P^-1
$$
and, by easy induction,
$$
A^n=PD^nP^-1
$$
for every $n$. Do you see the difference?
Now, in order to compute the limit, it is sufficient to compute the limit of $D^n$, because matrix multiplication is continuous.
In general, the statement
$$
(AB)^n=A^nB^n
$$
is false for square matrices. So it's not true in general that, from $A=PDP^-1$ it follows that $A^n=P^nD^n(P^-1)^n$.
Rather you should note that
$$
A^2=(PDP^-1)(PDP^-1)=PDP^-1PDP^-1=PDDP^-1=PD^2P^-1
$$
and, by easy induction,
$$
A^n=PD^nP^-1
$$
for every $n$. Do you see the difference?
Now, in order to compute the limit, it is sufficient to compute the limit of $D^n$, because matrix multiplication is continuous.
edited Nov 19 at 14:38
answered Nov 18 at 22:35
egreg
173k1383198
173k1383198
Perhaps it is worth remarking that we do still have $P$ and $P^-$ to take into account, but that is straightforward and we do not have to worry what $P^n$ might be.
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:23
@PJTraill Isn't the “Rather” part covering it?
– egreg
Nov 19 at 14:25
Formally it certainly does, but given the level of the questioner I thought one might make that explicit (though an alternative would be to nudge them to chew on some thought inclining them in that direction).
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:26
add a comment |
Perhaps it is worth remarking that we do still have $P$ and $P^-$ to take into account, but that is straightforward and we do not have to worry what $P^n$ might be.
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:23
@PJTraill Isn't the “Rather” part covering it?
– egreg
Nov 19 at 14:25
Formally it certainly does, but given the level of the questioner I thought one might make that explicit (though an alternative would be to nudge them to chew on some thought inclining them in that direction).
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:26
Perhaps it is worth remarking that we do still have $P$ and $P^-$ to take into account, but that is straightforward and we do not have to worry what $P^n$ might be.
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:23
Perhaps it is worth remarking that we do still have $P$ and $P^-$ to take into account, but that is straightforward and we do not have to worry what $P^n$ might be.
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:23
@PJTraill Isn't the “Rather” part covering it?
– egreg
Nov 19 at 14:25
@PJTraill Isn't the “Rather” part covering it?
– egreg
Nov 19 at 14:25
Formally it certainly does, but given the level of the questioner I thought one might make that explicit (though an alternative would be to nudge them to chew on some thought inclining them in that direction).
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:26
Formally it certainly does, but given the level of the questioner I thought one might make that explicit (though an alternative would be to nudge them to chew on some thought inclining them in that direction).
– PJTraill
Nov 19 at 14:26
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
We have that
$$A = PDP^-1implies A^2 = PDP^-1 PDP^-1= PD(P^-1P)DP^-1= PD (I)DP^-1=PD^2P^-1$$
and so on we can generalize the result rigorously for any $n$ by induction.
4
thank you! the "inner" factors on $P$ and $P^-1$ will cancel and you'll only be left with the one $P$ and its inverse.
– Tyna
Nov 18 at 22:32
2
@Tyna Yes exactly and then we can generalize that for any $n$ (rigoursly by induction).
– gimusi
Nov 18 at 22:34
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
We have that
$$A = PDP^-1implies A^2 = PDP^-1 PDP^-1= PD(P^-1P)DP^-1= PD (I)DP^-1=PD^2P^-1$$
and so on we can generalize the result rigorously for any $n$ by induction.
4
thank you! the "inner" factors on $P$ and $P^-1$ will cancel and you'll only be left with the one $P$ and its inverse.
– Tyna
Nov 18 at 22:32
2
@Tyna Yes exactly and then we can generalize that for any $n$ (rigoursly by induction).
– gimusi
Nov 18 at 22:34
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
up vote
13
down vote
We have that
$$A = PDP^-1implies A^2 = PDP^-1 PDP^-1= PD(P^-1P)DP^-1= PD (I)DP^-1=PD^2P^-1$$
and so on we can generalize the result rigorously for any $n$ by induction.
We have that
$$A = PDP^-1implies A^2 = PDP^-1 PDP^-1= PD(P^-1P)DP^-1= PD (I)DP^-1=PD^2P^-1$$
and so on we can generalize the result rigorously for any $n$ by induction.
edited Nov 19 at 14:24
answered Nov 18 at 22:28
gimusi
86.3k74392
86.3k74392
4
thank you! the "inner" factors on $P$ and $P^-1$ will cancel and you'll only be left with the one $P$ and its inverse.
– Tyna
Nov 18 at 22:32
2
@Tyna Yes exactly and then we can generalize that for any $n$ (rigoursly by induction).
– gimusi
Nov 18 at 22:34
add a comment |
4
thank you! the "inner" factors on $P$ and $P^-1$ will cancel and you'll only be left with the one $P$ and its inverse.
– Tyna
Nov 18 at 22:32
2
@Tyna Yes exactly and then we can generalize that for any $n$ (rigoursly by induction).
– gimusi
Nov 18 at 22:34
4
4
thank you! the "inner" factors on $P$ and $P^-1$ will cancel and you'll only be left with the one $P$ and its inverse.
– Tyna
Nov 18 at 22:32
thank you! the "inner" factors on $P$ and $P^-1$ will cancel and you'll only be left with the one $P$ and its inverse.
– Tyna
Nov 18 at 22:32
2
2
@Tyna Yes exactly and then we can generalize that for any $n$ (rigoursly by induction).
– gimusi
Nov 18 at 22:34
@Tyna Yes exactly and then we can generalize that for any $n$ (rigoursly by induction).
– gimusi
Nov 18 at 22:34
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004222%2flimit-of-matrix-a-raised-to-power-of-n-as-n-approaches-infinity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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