Can I compare real and complex eigenvalues?
$begingroup$
I'm calculating the eigenvalues of the matrix $begin{pmatrix} 2 &0 &0& 1\
0 &1& 0& 1\
0 &0& 3& 1\
-1 &0 &0 &1end{pmatrix}$,
which are $1$,$3$, $frac{3}{2}+sqrt{3}i$ and $frac{3}{2}-sqrt{3}i$.
I wish to recognize the biggest and smallest of these. But how can I compare real and complex numbers?
matrices complex-numbers eigenvalues-eigenvectors
edited Dec 31 '18 at 9:10
Tommi Brander
981922
asked Apr 19 '16 at 13:52
mavaviljmavavilj
2,81411137
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm calculating the eigenvalues of the matrix $begin{pmatrix} 2 &0 &0& 1\
0 &1& 0& 1\
0 &0& 3& 1\
-1 &0 &0 &1end{pmatrix}$,
which are $1$,$3$, $frac{3}{2}+sqrt{3}i$ and $frac{3}{2}-sqrt{3}i$.
I wish to recognize the biggest and smallest of these. But how can I compare real and complex numbers?
matrices complex-numbers eigenvalues-eigenvectors
edited Dec 31 '18 at 9:10
Tommi Brander
981922
asked Apr 19 '16 at 13:52
mavaviljmavavilj
2,81411137
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm calculating the eigenvalues of the matrix $begin{pmatrix} 2 &0 &0& 1\
0 &1& 0& 1\
0 &0& 3& 1\
-1 &0 &0 &1end{pmatrix}$,
which are $1$,$3$, $frac{3}{2}+sqrt{3}i$ and $frac{3}{2}-sqrt{3}i$.
I wish to recognize the biggest and smallest of these. But how can I compare real and complex numbers?
matrices complex-numbers eigenvalues-eigenvectors
edited Dec 31 '18 at 9:10
Tommi Brander
981922
asked Apr 19 '16 at 13:52
mavaviljmavavilj
2,81411137
$endgroup$
I'm calculating the eigenvalues of the matrix $begin{pmatrix} 2 &0 &0& 1\
0 &1& 0& 1\
0 &0& 3& 1\
-1 &0 &0 &1end{pmatrix}$,
which are $1$,$3$, $frac{3}{2}+sqrt{3}i$ and $frac{3}{2}-sqrt{3}i$.
I wish to recognize the biggest and smallest of these. But how can I compare real and complex numbers?
matrices complex-numbers eigenvalues-eigenvectors
matrices complex-numbers eigenvalues-eigenvectors
edited Dec 31 '18 at 9:10
Tommi Brander
981922
asked Apr 19 '16 at 13:52
mavaviljmavavilj
2,81411137
edited Dec 31 '18 at 9:10
Tommi Brander
981922
asked Apr 19 '16 at 13:52
mavaviljmavavilj
2,81411137
edited Dec 31 '18 at 9:10
Tommi Brander
981922
edited Dec 31 '18 at 9:10
Tommi Brander
981922
edited Dec 31 '18 at 9:10
Tommi Brander
981922
981922
asked Apr 19 '16 at 13:52
mavaviljmavavilj
2,81411137
asked Apr 19 '16 at 13:52
mavaviljmavavilj
2,81411137
asked Apr 19 '16 at 13:52
mavaviljmavavilj
2,81411137
2,81411137
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general, when talking about "largest" eigenvalue, we are usually talking about largest in absolute value (or magnitude,) where $|a+bi|=sqrt{a^2+b^2}$.
This means sometimes that there isn't one eigenvalue that is "largest", because two different eigenvalues can have the same absolute value.
As mentioned by others, complex numbers are not themselves ordered.
As mentioned in the comments below, if you know a matrix has only real eigenvalues, then the question of "largest" and "smallest" eigenvalues will depend on the context.
The "largest" eigenvalue for a matrix $A$ is often interesting, particularly when it is unique, because then for large $n$, $A^n$ is dominated by the action on the eigenvectors for those values. This is useful for putting bounds on $A^nmathbf v$.
answered Apr 19 '16 at 14:07
Thomas AndrewsThomas Andrews
130k12146298
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
One needs to be careful with one issue: when talking about the smallest eigenvalue of a Hermitian matrix, this may either mean the “farthest down” value (e.g. with the ground-state energy of a QM Hamiltonian – you can always gauge this to be positive, but it's quite common to have all energies negative) or indeed the smallest-absolute value.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Apr 19 '16 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose that there was an order on $mathbb{C}$ compatible with the natural order on $mathbb{R}$. Then either $i>0$ or $i<0$. Assume that $i>0$, then multiplying this inequality by $i$ we find that $-1=i^2>0$, but that's a contradiction. Thus $i<0$. But then multiplying by $i$ we get $-1=i^2>0$ (the inequality flipped since we multiplied by a negative number). In both cases we arrive at a contradiction. Hence there's no order on $mathbb{C}$ compatible with $mathbb{R}$.
answered Apr 20 '16 at 6:42
Mathematician 42Mathematician 42
8,65411438
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You completely missed the point of the question.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '16 at 11:26
$begingroup$
Yes and no, Thomas Andrews' answer already answers the point of the question, I merely wanted to give this simple argument why no natural order on $mathbb{C}$ exists that extends the order of $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathematician 42
Apr 22 '16 at 12:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can't, in the sense that there is no natural total order in $mathbb{C}$.
answered Apr 19 '16 at 13:54
Matias HeikkiläMatias Heikkilä
1,778713
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
But I'm asked to do it. This is an assignment.
$endgroup$
– mavavilj
Apr 19 '16 at 13:55
3
$begingroup$
Well is $(0,1)$ or $(1,0)$ larger? You need to boil things down to real numbers in some way to compare complex values. Either you have miscalculated the eigenvalues, or you have misunderstood the question.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 19 '16 at 13:56
4
$begingroup$
There are total orders on $mathbb{C}$ (e.g. the lexicographic order, for which $1 > i > -i > -1$). I don't know what you mean by "natural", though it is true that $mathbb{C}$ cannot be made into an ordered field. Anyway, in the context of eigenvalues it's the absolute value that counts, as Thomas Andrews says.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 19 '16 at 14:01
$begingroup$
Yes there are total orders on $mathbb{C}$, but which one you would use if you were asked to compare $a in mathbb{C}$ and $b in mathbb{C}$? Could you be sure that your friend uses the same order if given the same task? If $a, b in mathbb{R}$ instead, we tend to use the usual order relation, and there would be no problem. That's what I mean by natural. But this is not very interesting, since the original question should have been read as "compare the absolute values". Good to know that convention in the future, though.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 20 '16 at 9:02
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
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%2f1749687%2fcan-i-compare-real-and-complex-eigenvalues%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
$begingroup$
In general, when talking about "largest" eigenvalue, we are usually talking about largest in absolute value (or magnitude,) where $|a+bi|=sqrt{a^2+b^2}$.
This means sometimes that there isn't one eigenvalue that is "largest", because two different eigenvalues can have the same absolute value.
As mentioned by others, complex numbers are not themselves ordered.
As mentioned in the comments below, if you know a matrix has only real eigenvalues, then the question of "largest" and "smallest" eigenvalues will depend on the context.
The "largest" eigenvalue for a matrix $A$ is often interesting, particularly when it is unique, because then for large $n$, $A^n$ is dominated by the action on the eigenvectors for those values. This is useful for putting bounds on $A^nmathbf v$.
answered Apr 19 '16 at 14:07
Thomas AndrewsThomas Andrews
130k12146298
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
One needs to be careful with one issue: when talking about the smallest eigenvalue of a Hermitian matrix, this may either mean the “farthest down” value (e.g. with the ground-state energy of a QM Hamiltonian – you can always gauge this to be positive, but it's quite common to have all energies negative) or indeed the smallest-absolute value.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Apr 19 '16 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, when talking about "largest" eigenvalue, we are usually talking about largest in absolute value (or magnitude,) where $|a+bi|=sqrt{a^2+b^2}$.
This means sometimes that there isn't one eigenvalue that is "largest", because two different eigenvalues can have the same absolute value.
As mentioned by others, complex numbers are not themselves ordered.
As mentioned in the comments below, if you know a matrix has only real eigenvalues, then the question of "largest" and "smallest" eigenvalues will depend on the context.
The "largest" eigenvalue for a matrix $A$ is often interesting, particularly when it is unique, because then for large $n$, $A^n$ is dominated by the action on the eigenvectors for those values. This is useful for putting bounds on $A^nmathbf v$.
answered Apr 19 '16 at 14:07
Thomas AndrewsThomas Andrews
130k12146298
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
One needs to be careful with one issue: when talking about the smallest eigenvalue of a Hermitian matrix, this may either mean the “farthest down” value (e.g. with the ground-state energy of a QM Hamiltonian – you can always gauge this to be positive, but it's quite common to have all energies negative) or indeed the smallest-absolute value.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Apr 19 '16 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, when talking about "largest" eigenvalue, we are usually talking about largest in absolute value (or magnitude,) where $|a+bi|=sqrt{a^2+b^2}$.
This means sometimes that there isn't one eigenvalue that is "largest", because two different eigenvalues can have the same absolute value.
As mentioned by others, complex numbers are not themselves ordered.
As mentioned in the comments below, if you know a matrix has only real eigenvalues, then the question of "largest" and "smallest" eigenvalues will depend on the context.
The "largest" eigenvalue for a matrix $A$ is often interesting, particularly when it is unique, because then for large $n$, $A^n$ is dominated by the action on the eigenvectors for those values. This is useful for putting bounds on $A^nmathbf v$.
answered Apr 19 '16 at 14:07
Thomas AndrewsThomas Andrews
130k12146298
$endgroup$
In general, when talking about "largest" eigenvalue, we are usually talking about largest in absolute value (or magnitude,) where $|a+bi|=sqrt{a^2+b^2}$.
This means sometimes that there isn't one eigenvalue that is "largest", because two different eigenvalues can have the same absolute value.
As mentioned by others, complex numbers are not themselves ordered.
As mentioned in the comments below, if you know a matrix has only real eigenvalues, then the question of "largest" and "smallest" eigenvalues will depend on the context.
The "largest" eigenvalue for a matrix $A$ is often interesting, particularly when it is unique, because then for large $n$, $A^n$ is dominated by the action on the eigenvectors for those values. This is useful for putting bounds on $A^nmathbf v$.
answered Apr 19 '16 at 14:07
Thomas AndrewsThomas Andrews
130k12146298
edited Apr 20 '16 at 13:55
answered Apr 19 '16 at 14:07
Thomas AndrewsThomas Andrews
130k12146298
answered Apr 19 '16 at 14:07
Thomas AndrewsThomas Andrews
130k12146298
answered Apr 19 '16 at 14:07
Thomas AndrewsThomas Andrews
130k12146298
130k12146298
7
$begingroup$
One needs to be careful with one issue: when talking about the smallest eigenvalue of a Hermitian matrix, this may either mean the “farthest down” value (e.g. with the ground-state energy of a QM Hamiltonian – you can always gauge this to be positive, but it's quite common to have all energies negative) or indeed the smallest-absolute value.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Apr 19 '16 at 14:39
add a comment |
7
$begingroup$
One needs to be careful with one issue: when talking about the smallest eigenvalue of a Hermitian matrix, this may either mean the “farthest down” value (e.g. with the ground-state energy of a QM Hamiltonian – you can always gauge this to be positive, but it's quite common to have all energies negative) or indeed the smallest-absolute value.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Apr 19 '16 at 14:39
7
7
$begingroup$
One needs to be careful with one issue: when talking about the smallest eigenvalue of a Hermitian matrix, this may either mean the “farthest down” value (e.g. with the ground-state energy of a QM Hamiltonian – you can always gauge this to be positive, but it's quite common to have all energies negative) or indeed the smallest-absolute value.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Apr 19 '16 at 14:39
$begingroup$
One needs to be careful with one issue: when talking about the smallest eigenvalue of a Hermitian matrix, this may either mean the “farthest down” value (e.g. with the ground-state energy of a QM Hamiltonian – you can always gauge this to be positive, but it's quite common to have all energies negative) or indeed the smallest-absolute value.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Apr 19 '16 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose that there was an order on $mathbb{C}$ compatible with the natural order on $mathbb{R}$. Then either $i>0$ or $i<0$. Assume that $i>0$, then multiplying this inequality by $i$ we find that $-1=i^2>0$, but that's a contradiction. Thus $i<0$. But then multiplying by $i$ we get $-1=i^2>0$ (the inequality flipped since we multiplied by a negative number). In both cases we arrive at a contradiction. Hence there's no order on $mathbb{C}$ compatible with $mathbb{R}$.
answered Apr 20 '16 at 6:42
Mathematician 42Mathematician 42
8,65411438
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You completely missed the point of the question.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '16 at 11:26
$begingroup$
Yes and no, Thomas Andrews' answer already answers the point of the question, I merely wanted to give this simple argument why no natural order on $mathbb{C}$ exists that extends the order of $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathematician 42
Apr 22 '16 at 12:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose that there was an order on $mathbb{C}$ compatible with the natural order on $mathbb{R}$. Then either $i>0$ or $i<0$. Assume that $i>0$, then multiplying this inequality by $i$ we find that $-1=i^2>0$, but that's a contradiction. Thus $i<0$. But then multiplying by $i$ we get $-1=i^2>0$ (the inequality flipped since we multiplied by a negative number). In both cases we arrive at a contradiction. Hence there's no order on $mathbb{C}$ compatible with $mathbb{R}$.
answered Apr 20 '16 at 6:42
Mathematician 42Mathematician 42
8,65411438
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You completely missed the point of the question.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '16 at 11:26
$begingroup$
Yes and no, Thomas Andrews' answer already answers the point of the question, I merely wanted to give this simple argument why no natural order on $mathbb{C}$ exists that extends the order of $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathematician 42
Apr 22 '16 at 12:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose that there was an order on $mathbb{C}$ compatible with the natural order on $mathbb{R}$. Then either $i>0$ or $i<0$. Assume that $i>0$, then multiplying this inequality by $i$ we find that $-1=i^2>0$, but that's a contradiction. Thus $i<0$. But then multiplying by $i$ we get $-1=i^2>0$ (the inequality flipped since we multiplied by a negative number). In both cases we arrive at a contradiction. Hence there's no order on $mathbb{C}$ compatible with $mathbb{R}$.
answered Apr 20 '16 at 6:42
Mathematician 42Mathematician 42
8,65411438
$endgroup$
Suppose that there was an order on $mathbb{C}$ compatible with the natural order on $mathbb{R}$. Then either $i>0$ or $i<0$. Assume that $i>0$, then multiplying this inequality by $i$ we find that $-1=i^2>0$, but that's a contradiction. Thus $i<0$. But then multiplying by $i$ we get $-1=i^2>0$ (the inequality flipped since we multiplied by a negative number). In both cases we arrive at a contradiction. Hence there's no order on $mathbb{C}$ compatible with $mathbb{R}$.
answered Apr 20 '16 at 6:42
Mathematician 42Mathematician 42
8,65411438
answered Apr 20 '16 at 6:42
Mathematician 42Mathematician 42
8,65411438
answered Apr 20 '16 at 6:42
Mathematician 42Mathematician 42
8,65411438
answered Apr 20 '16 at 6:42
Mathematician 42Mathematician 42
8,65411438
8,65411438
$begingroup$
You completely missed the point of the question.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '16 at 11:26
$begingroup$
Yes and no, Thomas Andrews' answer already answers the point of the question, I merely wanted to give this simple argument why no natural order on $mathbb{C}$ exists that extends the order of $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathematician 42
Apr 22 '16 at 12:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You completely missed the point of the question.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '16 at 11:26
$begingroup$
Yes and no, Thomas Andrews' answer already answers the point of the question, I merely wanted to give this simple argument why no natural order on $mathbb{C}$ exists that extends the order of $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathematician 42
Apr 22 '16 at 12:54
$begingroup$
You completely missed the point of the question.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '16 at 11:26
$begingroup$
You completely missed the point of the question.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 22 '16 at 11:26
$begingroup$
Yes and no, Thomas Andrews' answer already answers the point of the question, I merely wanted to give this simple argument why no natural order on $mathbb{C}$ exists that extends the order of $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathematician 42
Apr 22 '16 at 12:54
$begingroup$
Yes and no, Thomas Andrews' answer already answers the point of the question, I merely wanted to give this simple argument why no natural order on $mathbb{C}$ exists that extends the order of $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathematician 42
Apr 22 '16 at 12:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can't, in the sense that there is no natural total order in $mathbb{C}$.
answered Apr 19 '16 at 13:54
Matias HeikkiläMatias Heikkilä
1,778713
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
But I'm asked to do it. This is an assignment.
$endgroup$
– mavavilj
Apr 19 '16 at 13:55
3
$begingroup$
Well is $(0,1)$ or $(1,0)$ larger? You need to boil things down to real numbers in some way to compare complex values. Either you have miscalculated the eigenvalues, or you have misunderstood the question.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 19 '16 at 13:56
4
$begingroup$
There are total orders on $mathbb{C}$ (e.g. the lexicographic order, for which $1 > i > -i > -1$). I don't know what you mean by "natural", though it is true that $mathbb{C}$ cannot be made into an ordered field. Anyway, in the context of eigenvalues it's the absolute value that counts, as Thomas Andrews says.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 19 '16 at 14:01
$begingroup$
Yes there are total orders on $mathbb{C}$, but which one you would use if you were asked to compare $a in mathbb{C}$ and $b in mathbb{C}$? Could you be sure that your friend uses the same order if given the same task? If $a, b in mathbb{R}$ instead, we tend to use the usual order relation, and there would be no problem. That's what I mean by natural. But this is not very interesting, since the original question should have been read as "compare the absolute values". Good to know that convention in the future, though.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 20 '16 at 9:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can't, in the sense that there is no natural total order in $mathbb{C}$.
answered Apr 19 '16 at 13:54
Matias HeikkiläMatias Heikkilä
1,778713
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
But I'm asked to do it. This is an assignment.
$endgroup$
– mavavilj
Apr 19 '16 at 13:55
3
$begingroup$
Well is $(0,1)$ or $(1,0)$ larger? You need to boil things down to real numbers in some way to compare complex values. Either you have miscalculated the eigenvalues, or you have misunderstood the question.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 19 '16 at 13:56
4
$begingroup$
There are total orders on $mathbb{C}$ (e.g. the lexicographic order, for which $1 > i > -i > -1$). I don't know what you mean by "natural", though it is true that $mathbb{C}$ cannot be made into an ordered field. Anyway, in the context of eigenvalues it's the absolute value that counts, as Thomas Andrews says.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 19 '16 at 14:01
$begingroup$
Yes there are total orders on $mathbb{C}$, but which one you would use if you were asked to compare $a in mathbb{C}$ and $b in mathbb{C}$? Could you be sure that your friend uses the same order if given the same task? If $a, b in mathbb{R}$ instead, we tend to use the usual order relation, and there would be no problem. That's what I mean by natural. But this is not very interesting, since the original question should have been read as "compare the absolute values". Good to know that convention in the future, though.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 20 '16 at 9:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can't, in the sense that there is no natural total order in $mathbb{C}$.
answered Apr 19 '16 at 13:54
Matias HeikkiläMatias Heikkilä
1,778713
$endgroup$
You can't, in the sense that there is no natural total order in $mathbb{C}$.
answered Apr 19 '16 at 13:54
Matias HeikkiläMatias Heikkilä
1,778713
answered Apr 19 '16 at 13:54
Matias HeikkiläMatias Heikkilä
1,778713
answered Apr 19 '16 at 13:54
Matias HeikkiläMatias Heikkilä
1,778713
answered Apr 19 '16 at 13:54
Matias HeikkiläMatias Heikkilä
1,778713
1,778713
7
$begingroup$
But I'm asked to do it. This is an assignment.
$endgroup$
– mavavilj
Apr 19 '16 at 13:55
3
$begingroup$
Well is $(0,1)$ or $(1,0)$ larger? You need to boil things down to real numbers in some way to compare complex values. Either you have miscalculated the eigenvalues, or you have misunderstood the question.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 19 '16 at 13:56
4
$begingroup$
There are total orders on $mathbb{C}$ (e.g. the lexicographic order, for which $1 > i > -i > -1$). I don't know what you mean by "natural", though it is true that $mathbb{C}$ cannot be made into an ordered field. Anyway, in the context of eigenvalues it's the absolute value that counts, as Thomas Andrews says.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 19 '16 at 14:01
$begingroup$
Yes there are total orders on $mathbb{C}$, but which one you would use if you were asked to compare $a in mathbb{C}$ and $b in mathbb{C}$? Could you be sure that your friend uses the same order if given the same task? If $a, b in mathbb{R}$ instead, we tend to use the usual order relation, and there would be no problem. That's what I mean by natural. But this is not very interesting, since the original question should have been read as "compare the absolute values". Good to know that convention in the future, though.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 20 '16 at 9:02
add a comment |
7
$begingroup$
But I'm asked to do it. This is an assignment.
$endgroup$
– mavavilj
Apr 19 '16 at 13:55
3
$begingroup$
Well is $(0,1)$ or $(1,0)$ larger? You need to boil things down to real numbers in some way to compare complex values. Either you have miscalculated the eigenvalues, or you have misunderstood the question.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 19 '16 at 13:56
4
$begingroup$
There are total orders on $mathbb{C}$ (e.g. the lexicographic order, for which $1 > i > -i > -1$). I don't know what you mean by "natural", though it is true that $mathbb{C}$ cannot be made into an ordered field. Anyway, in the context of eigenvalues it's the absolute value that counts, as Thomas Andrews says.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 19 '16 at 14:01
$begingroup$
Yes there are total orders on $mathbb{C}$, but which one you would use if you were asked to compare $a in mathbb{C}$ and $b in mathbb{C}$? Could you be sure that your friend uses the same order if given the same task? If $a, b in mathbb{R}$ instead, we tend to use the usual order relation, and there would be no problem. That's what I mean by natural. But this is not very interesting, since the original question should have been read as "compare the absolute values". Good to know that convention in the future, though.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 20 '16 at 9:02
7
7
$begingroup$
But I'm asked to do it. This is an assignment.
$endgroup$
– mavavilj
Apr 19 '16 at 13:55
$begingroup$
But I'm asked to do it. This is an assignment.
$endgroup$
– mavavilj
Apr 19 '16 at 13:55
3
3
$begingroup$
Well is $(0,1)$ or $(1,0)$ larger? You need to boil things down to real numbers in some way to compare complex values. Either you have miscalculated the eigenvalues, or you have misunderstood the question.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 19 '16 at 13:56
$begingroup$
Well is $(0,1)$ or $(1,0)$ larger? You need to boil things down to real numbers in some way to compare complex values. Either you have miscalculated the eigenvalues, or you have misunderstood the question.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 19 '16 at 13:56
4
4
$begingroup$
There are total orders on $mathbb{C}$ (e.g. the lexicographic order, for which $1 > i > -i > -1$). I don't know what you mean by "natural", though it is true that $mathbb{C}$ cannot be made into an ordered field. Anyway, in the context of eigenvalues it's the absolute value that counts, as Thomas Andrews says.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 19 '16 at 14:01
$begingroup$
There are total orders on $mathbb{C}$ (e.g. the lexicographic order, for which $1 > i > -i > -1$). I don't know what you mean by "natural", though it is true that $mathbb{C}$ cannot be made into an ordered field. Anyway, in the context of eigenvalues it's the absolute value that counts, as Thomas Andrews says.
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
Apr 19 '16 at 14:01
$begingroup$
Yes there are total orders on $mathbb{C}$, but which one you would use if you were asked to compare $a in mathbb{C}$ and $b in mathbb{C}$? Could you be sure that your friend uses the same order if given the same task? If $a, b in mathbb{R}$ instead, we tend to use the usual order relation, and there would be no problem. That's what I mean by natural. But this is not very interesting, since the original question should have been read as "compare the absolute values". Good to know that convention in the future, though.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 20 '16 at 9:02
$begingroup$
Yes there are total orders on $mathbb{C}$, but which one you would use if you were asked to compare $a in mathbb{C}$ and $b in mathbb{C}$? Could you be sure that your friend uses the same order if given the same task? If $a, b in mathbb{R}$ instead, we tend to use the usual order relation, and there would be no problem. That's what I mean by natural. But this is not very interesting, since the original question should have been read as "compare the absolute values". Good to know that convention in the future, though.
$endgroup$
– Matias Heikkilä
Apr 20 '16 at 9:02
add a comment |
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.
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%2f1749687%2fcan-i-compare-real-and-complex-eigenvalues%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
