Skip to main content
edited body
Source Link
Felix Goldberg
  • 7k
  • 4
  • 31
  • 55

THeThe interlacing theorem tells us that for rank 1 $W$ the eigenvalues of $M \pm W$ are sandwiched between those of $M$ (see Corollary 4.3.9 here). Therefore $null(M)-1 \leq nullity(M \pm W) \leq null(M)+1$ and this is equivalent to $r(M)-1 \leq r(M \pm W) \leq r(M)+1$.

These bounds are tight. For the case of graphs there are some detailed studies of when the different cases obtain.

THe interlacing theorem tells us that for rank 1 $W$ the eigenvalues of $M \pm W$ are sandwiched between those of $M$ (see Corollary 4.3.9 here). Therefore $null(M)-1 \leq nullity(M \pm W) \leq null(M)+1$ and this is equivalent to $r(M)-1 \leq r(M \pm W) \leq r(M)+1$.

These bounds are tight. For the case of graphs there are some detailed studies of when the different cases obtain.

The interlacing theorem tells us that for rank 1 $W$ the eigenvalues of $M \pm W$ are sandwiched between those of $M$ (see Corollary 4.3.9 here). Therefore $null(M)-1 \leq nullity(M \pm W) \leq null(M)+1$ and this is equivalent to $r(M)-1 \leq r(M \pm W) \leq r(M)+1$.

These bounds are tight. For the case of graphs there are some detailed studies of when the different cases obtain.

Source Link
Felix Goldberg
  • 7k
  • 4
  • 31
  • 55

THe interlacing theorem tells us that for rank 1 $W$ the eigenvalues of $M \pm W$ are sandwiched between those of $M$ (see Corollary 4.3.9 here). Therefore $null(M)-1 \leq nullity(M \pm W) \leq null(M)+1$ and this is equivalent to $r(M)-1 \leq r(M \pm W) \leq r(M)+1$.

These bounds are tight. For the case of graphs there are some detailed studies of when the different cases obtain.