[sage-devel] Re: normalizing (numerical) eigenvectors

2010-04-20 Thread Rob Beezer
The original question about eigenvectors was prompted by the following. Eigenvectors over RDF and CDF are computed by SciPy and returned with their eigenvalues as if each eigenvalue has algebraic and geometric multiplicity 1. Decisions about "equal" eigenvalues are left to the caller. SciPy norm

Re: [sage-devel] Re: normalizing (numerical) eigenvectors

2010-04-20 Thread Tim Lahey
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Jason Grout wrote: > > Do you mind posting this example?  Was it truly a bug (i.e., unintentional > wrong behavior), or a result of double precision computation rounding things > off?  In other words, were the returned evals almost real?  What was the > condition n

Re: [sage-devel] Re: normalizing (numerical) eigenvectors

2010-04-20 Thread William Stein
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Tim Lahey wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:42 AM, John Cremona wrote: >> In summary: what is a sensible or desirable normalisation depends a >> lot on what the field is and what sort of mathematics you are doing! >> >> John > > Matlab has a bug in its eigen rout

[sage-devel] Re: normalizing (numerical) eigenvectors

2010-04-20 Thread Jason Grout
On 04/20/2010 06:52 AM, Tim Lahey wrote: On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:42 AM, John Cremona wrote: In summary: what is a sensible or desirable normalisation depends a lot on what the field is and what sort of mathematics you are doing! John Matlab has a bug in its eigen routines, at least in its

[sage-devel] Re: normalizing (numerical) eigenvectors

2010-04-20 Thread Dima Pasechnik
John, certainly, over exact field you don't want to create unnecessary square roots. (actually, I would argue against normalisation in fields like QQbar, as division is expensive there...) Dima On Apr 20, 7:42 pm, John Cremona wrote: > I would say:  over an inexact field like R or C then it is se

Re: [sage-devel] Re: normalizing (numerical) eigenvectors

2010-04-20 Thread Tim Lahey
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:42 AM, John Cremona wrote: > In summary: what is a sensible or desirable normalisation depends a > lot on what the field is and what sort of mathematics you are doing! > > John Matlab has a bug in its eigen routines, at least in its eigenvalue routines so I'm assuming th

Re: [sage-devel] Re: normalizing (numerical) eigenvectors

2010-04-20 Thread John Cremona
I would say: over an inexact field like R or C then it is sensible to normalize as Dima suggests (norm 1) rather than making any one nonzero coordinate 1. But over exact fields (e.g. finite fields, number fields) it does make perfect sense to normalise to the first (or last?) nonzero coordinate

[sage-devel] Re: normalizing (numerical) eigenvectors

2010-04-20 Thread Dima Pasechnik
Dan, indeed, it's not too bad to normalize to norm 1, say, but it is quite bad to normalize a given coordinate to 1. I cc this to sage-devel Best, Dima On Apr 18, 11:21 am, Dan Drake wrote: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 at 07:50PM -0700, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On Apr 18, 3:29 am, William Stein wrot