Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is a question in elementary linear algebra, though I hope it's not so trivial to be closed.

Real symmetric matrices, complex hermitian matrices, unitary matrices, and complex matrices with distinct eigenvalues are diagonalizable, i.e. conjugate to a diagonal matrix.

I'd just like to see an example of a complex symmetric $n\times n$ matrix that is not diagonalizable.

share|improve this question
    
It's nontrivial but surely falls under "homework" rubric –  Victor Protsak May 5 '10 at 21:12
4  
It's homework level difficulty but, if you look at this user's past history, it probably isn't homework. –  David Speyer May 5 '10 at 21:15
1  
It appears to be well-known (or in my case, I was told in a seminar) that every complex square matrix is similar to a complex symmetric one, but not necessarily unitarily so. (See the comments on page 1 of arxiv.org/abs/0907.2728v2 ) In particular, any non-trivial nilpotent would do. –  Yemon Choi May 5 '10 at 21:36
    
@David: I know, for I gave it to him (mathoverflow.net/questions/23478/…)! :) –  Victor Protsak May 5 '10 at 23:30
    
@Victor: excuse me, but I don't understand how can Gram-Schmidt and isotropic vectors be related to this problem (ok, "exercise" ;) ), as I'm looking for diagonalizing a (symmetric) matrix $A$ as an operator ($BAB^{-1}$), not as a quadratic form ($B^tAB$). A priori, $A$ could be non-orthogonally diagonalizable. Right? –  Qfwfq May 6 '10 at 9:55

1 Answer 1

up vote 16 down vote accepted

$$\begin{pmatrix} 1 & i \\ i & -1 \end{pmatrix}.$$

How did I find this? Non-diagonalizable means that there is some Jordan block of size greater than $1$. I decided to hunt for something with Jordan form $\left( \begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$. So I want trace and determinant to be zero, but the matrix not to be zero. The diagonal entries made sure the trace vanished, and then the off diagonal entries were forced.

share|improve this answer
    
@David In what sense is the above matrix symmetric? (Definitely not in the sense of it being being equal to its transpose). Further one knows that $3\times 3$ symmetric traceless real matrices support an irreducible representation of $SO(3)$. Is there any analogous statement known for complex symmetric matrices or for the double cover $SU(2)$ or $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ ? –  Anirbit Dec 16 '10 at 10:16
5  
In the sense that it is equal to its transpose. There are two off diagonal entries, and they are equal. –  David Speyer Dec 16 '10 at 13:12
    
@David. Sorry for the first question. It was stupid of me. So any comments about the representation theory aspect of complex symmetric matrices as in comparison to real case which I was mentioning? –  Anirbit Dec 16 '10 at 18:11

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.