Closed f29946bc-ee7b-48cd-9abc-3445948c551d closed 8 years ago
Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
It took a while to found commands for doing "eigendecomposition", also called "spectral decomposition", to a matrix. Hence I suggest adding those words to documentation of `jordan_form()`, so that next one will found them more easy.
+Also "`Matrix.random(GF(3), 2)` never generates `[[2,0],[0,2]]`" must be changed to have `Matrix.random(GF(3), 2), algorithm='unimodular')`.
Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
It took a while to found commands for doing "eigendecomposition", also called "spectral decomposition", to a matrix. Hence I suggest adding those words to documentation of `jordan_form()`, so that next one will found them more easy.
Also "`Matrix.random(GF(3), 2)` never generates `[[2,0],[0,2]]`" must be changed to have `Matrix.random(GF(3), 2), algorithm='unimodular')`.
+
+`matrix2.pyx`, `rref()` has error in link to "echelon_form".
Author: Jori Mäntysalo
New commits:
b4b58db | Trivial additions. |
Commit: b4b58db
I do not believe that the jordon canonical form and the eigen value decomposition are equivalent? I do not know much about this topic, but on this pdf: https://www.mathworks.com/moler/eigs.pdf
Section 10.8(page 16) seems to indicate that the JCF(jordon canonical form) gives a numerically imperfect approximation compared to the Schur form? What am I missing?
Replying to @sagetrac-zonova:
I do not believe that the jordon canonical form and the eigen value decomposition are equivalent? I do not know much about this topic, but on this pdf: https://www.mathworks.com/moler/eigs.pdf
Section 10.8(page 16) seems to indicate that the JCF(jordon canonical form) gives a numerically imperfect approximation compared to the Schur form? What am I missing?
I am not an expert, got this as a comment from a teahcer. Any expert of are here?
Numerical instability is another issue, and does not count if we do not use RR
on other inexact base rign.
The page says "If A
is not defective, then the JCF is the same as the eigenvalue decomposition." So yes, this should be rephrased.
Replying to @jm58660:
I am not an expert, got this as a comment from a teahcer. Any expert of are here?
I'm no expert, but afaik the terms “eigendecomposition” and “spectral decomposition” are used for diagonalizable matrices only, while the Jordan form is defined for all matrices (and coincides with the eigendecomposition when the matrix is diagonalizable).
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
10286f8 | Eigendecomposition is only defined for diagonalizable matrices. |
Replying to @mezzarobba:
Replying to @jm58660:
(and coincides with the eigendecomposition when the matrix is diagonalizable).
OK, this corrected.
sage -t --long src/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx
Error: TAB character found at lines 9792,9793
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
49b57f9 | Tabs to spaces. |
Arghs. Emacs and .py
vs. .pyx
.
Reviewer: Frédéric Chapoton
ok, let it be.
Changed branch from u/jmantysalo/addeigendecompositionto_docstring to 49b57f9
It took a while to found commands for doing "eigendecomposition", also called "spectral decomposition", to a matrix. Hence I suggest adding those words to documentation of
jordan_form()
, so that next one will found them more easy.Also "
Matrix.random(GF(3), 2)
never generates[[2,0],[0,2]]
" must be changed to haveMatrix.random(GF(3), 2), algorithm='unimodular')
.matrix2.pyx
,rref()
has error in link to "echelon_form".CC: @rbeezer @kedlaya
Component: documentation
Author: Jori Mäntysalo
Branch/Commit:
49b57f9
Reviewer: Frédéric Chapoton
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20465