How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Eigenvalues and the Characteristic Polynomial: Examples and Counterexamples
1 · Prerequisites
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Congruences, the Integers Modulo n and the Chinese Remainder Theorem
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Countability and Uncountability
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Eigenvalues, Eigenvectors and the Characteristic Polynomial
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Primes, Euclid's Lemma and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- The Determinant of a Linear Operator, Cofactors and Cramer's Rule
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
The matrix has characteristic polynomial and two explicitly computed eigenspaces
Example
Over , let
Then , , and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The displayed real matrix .
The characteristic polynomial is (For , the characteristic polynomial is when , with for the unique matrix).
The eigenspace is (Eigenvalues, eigenvectors, eigenspaces , and the spectrum of an endomorphism).
Verification
By [L1], .
The equation gives , hence .
The equation gives , hence .
The two nonzero spanning vectors also directly exhibit both roots as eigenvalues.
A quarter-turn of has characteristic polynomial and no real eigenvalue
Example
The real quarter-turn
has and empty real spectrum.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The displayed matrix, acting on .
The spectrum over the base field is exactly the root set in that field of the characteristic polynomial (For every finite-dimensional space, is exactly the set of roots in of ).
Every real square is nonnegative (Squares of nonzero elements are positive).
Verification
Directly, .
For every , [L2] gives , so has no real root.
By [L1], has no real eigenvalue, despite acting on a nonzero real space.
over has characteristic polynomial and no eigenvalue in its base field
Example
Over , the matrix
has characteristic polynomial and no eigenvalue in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The displayed matrix over .
Since is prime, is a field, whose only elements are and (For every prime , the two operations on make it a field).
The spectrum over the base field is exactly the root set in that field of the characteristic polynomial (For every finite-dimensional space, is exactly the set of roots in of ).
Verification
In , .
By [L1], the only candidate roots are and , and while in .
Thus has no root in its base field, and [L2] gives .
has algebraic multiplicity two but geometric multiplicity one at
Example
For
the eigenvalue has algebraic multiplicity and geometric multiplicity .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The displayed real matrix .
Algebraic multiplicity is the exponent of in the characteristic polynomial, and geometric multiplicity is (Algebraic multiplicity as the exponent of in , and geometric multiplicity as ).
Verification
One has , so [L1] gives algebraic multiplicity .
Since , its kernel is , a one-dimensional space.
Thus the geometric multiplicity is , so the general multiplicity inequality can be strict.
The scalar matrix has algebraic and geometric multiplicity two at
Example
Over any field , the scalar matrix has algebraic and geometric multiplicity at the scalar .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The matrix .
Algebraic multiplicity is the exponent of in the characteristic polynomial, and geometric multiplicity is (Algebraic multiplicity as the exponent of in , and geometric multiplicity as ).
The two standard coordinate vectors form a basis of (The standard list with and for is an ordered basis of ; hence , and is the zero space with basis and dimension ).
Verification
Since , one has , so the algebraic multiplicity is .
Since , its kernel is all of , which has dimension by [L2]. Thus the geometric multiplicity is .
Both multiplicities therefore equal , including in characteristic , where the scalar denoted is .
Cayley-Hamilton reduces every power of to a linear combination of and
Example
Let , and define , , and for . Then, over any field and for every ,
with the integer coefficients interpreted in the field.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The displayed matrix and recurrence.
Cayley-Hamilton states that a matrix satisfies its characteristic polynomial (Cayley-Hamilton: every finite-dimensional endomorphism satisfies its characteristic polynomial, ).
Verification
Direct calculation gives and , agreeing with [L1]. For , ; for , .
Assume and . Multiplication by and give .
The base cases and recurrence prove the formula for every , so every positive power lies in .
FALSE: substituting a fixed matrix for defines a ring homomorphism
Statement refuted
Refuted claim: For a fixed , the coefficientwise rule is a ring homomorphism .
This is the invalid substitution step in a familiar pseudo-proof of Cayley-Hamilton; the actual theorem Cayley-Hamilton: every finite-dimensional endomorphism satisfies its characteristic polynomial, requires a coefficient-comparison argument.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Work over any field and take and in .
Matrix multiplication over a commutative ring is defined by finite row-column sums, and the identity matrix has on its diagonal and elsewhere (Entrywise ring-matrix operations, rectangular matrix products, identity matrices and transpose).
Refutation
In , the row-column formula [L1] and commutativity of give .
The coefficientwise rule has , , and , whereas .
Since , step 2.1 shows . The coefficientwise substitution rule is therefore not multiplicative and hence is not a ring homomorphism.
Sources
Standard references
Recommended treatments; not extraction sources.