# The Unapologetic Mathematician

## Almost Upper-Triangular Matrices

Over an algebraically closed field we can always find an upper-triangular matrix for any linear endomorphism. Over the real numbers we’re not quite so lucky, but we can come close.

Let $T:V\rightarrow V$ be a linear transformation from a real vector space $V$ of dimension $d$ to itself. We might not be able to find an eigenvector — a one-dimensional invariant subspace — but we know that we can find either a one-dimensional or a two-dimensional invariant subspace $U_1\subseteq V$. Just like before we get an action of $T$ on the quotient space $V/U_1$. Why? Because if we have two representatives $v$ and $w$ of the same vector in the quotient space, then we can write $w=v+u$. Acting by $T$, we find $Tw=Tv+Tu$. And since $Tu\in U_1$, the vectors $Tv$ and $Tw$ are again equivalent in the quotient space.

Now we can find a subspace $\hat{U}_2\subseteq V/U_1$ which is invariant under this action of $T$. Is this an invariant subspace of $V$? No, it’s not even a subspace of $V$. But we could pick some $U_2\subseteq V$ containing a unique representative for each vector in $\hat{U}_2$. For instance, we could pick a basis of $\hat{U}_2$, a representative for each basis vector, and let $U_2$ be the span of these representatives. Is this an invariant subspace? Still, the answer is no. Let’s say $u\in U_2$ is the identified representative of $\hat{u}\in\hat{U}_2$. Then all we know is that $Tu$ is a representative of $T\hat{u}$, not that it’s the identified representative. It could have some components spilling out into $U_1$.

As we proceed, picking up either a one- or two-dimensional subspace at each step, we can pick a basis of each subspace. The action of $T$ sends each basis vector into the current subspace and possibly earlier subspaces. Writing it all out, we get a matrix that looks like

$\displaystyle\begin{pmatrix}A_1&&*\\&\ddots&\\{0}&&A_m\end{pmatrix}$

where each $A_j$ is either a $1\times1$ matrix or a $2\times2$ matrix with no eigenvalues. The $1\times1$ blocks come from the one-dimensional invariant subspaces in the construction, while the $2\times2$ blocks come from the two-dimensional invariant subspaces in the construction, though they may not be invariant once we put them back into $V$. Above the diagonal we have no control (yet) over the entries, but below the diagonal almost all the entries are zero. The only exceptions are in the $2\times2$ blocks, where we poke just barely down by one row.

We can note here that if there are $n\leq m$ two-dimensional blocks and $m-n$ one-dimensional blocks, then the total number of columns will be $2n+(m-n)=n+m=d$. Thus we must have at least $\lceil\frac{d}{2}\rceil$ blocks, and at most $d$ blocks. The latter extreme corresponds to an actual upper-triangular matrix.

### Like this:

Posted by John Armstrong | Algebra, Linear Algebra

## 8 Comments	»

1. [...] we don’t always have an upper-triangular matrix, but we can always find a matrix that’s almost upper-triangular. That is, one that looks [...]

Pingback by | April 2, 2009 | Reply

2. [...] two-dimensional invariant subspace on which has no eigenvalues. This corresponds to a block in an almost upper-triangular representation of . So we’ll just assume for the moment that has dimension [...]

Pingback by | April 3, 2009 | Reply

3. [...] if is a real vector space of any finite dimension we know we can find an almost upper-triangular form. This form is highly non-unique, but there are some patterns we can exploit as we move [...]

Pingback by | April 6, 2009 | Reply

4. [...] The Multiplicity of an Eigenpair As usual, let be a linear transformation on a real vector space of dimension . We know that can be put into an almost upper-triangular form [...]

Pingback by | April 8, 2009 | Reply

5. [...] We know that we can put into the almost upper-triangular form [...]

Pingback by | April 15, 2009 | Reply

6. [...] vsaka realna matrika podobna realni zgornje trikotni matriki, npr. . Velja pa . Lahko pa za matriko dosežemo še več: [...]

Pingback by | April 25, 2009 | Reply

7. [...] not be able to put the transformation into an upper-triangular form. But we can put it into an almost upper-triangular form. The determinant is then the product of the determinants of the blocks along the diagonal. The [...]

Pingback by | August 3, 2009 | Reply

8. [...] vsaka realna matrika podobna realni zgornje trikotni matriki, npr. . Velja pa . Lahko pa za matriko dosežemo še več: [...]

Pingback by | April 9, 2010 | Reply

« Previous | Next »

## About this weblog

This is mainly an expository blath, with occasional high-level excursions, humorous observations, rants, and musings. The main-line exposition should be accessible to the “Generally Interested Lay Audience”, as long as you trace the links back towards the basics. Check the sidebar for specific topics (under “Categories”).

I’m in the process of tweaking some aspects of the site to make it easier to refer back to older topics, so try to make the best of it for now.
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 0, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 41, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.8703263401985168, "perplexity_flag": "head"}