The prior subsection defines the relation of similarity and shows that,
although similar matrices are necessarily matrix equivalent, the converse
does not hold.
Some matrix-equivalence classes break into two or more similarity
classes (the nonsingular
matrices, for instance).
This means that the canonical form for matrix equivalence,
a block partial-identity, cannot be used as a canonical form
for matrix similarity because
the partial-identities cannot be in more than one
similarity class, so there are similarity classes without one.
This picture illustrates.
As earlier in this book, class representatives are shown with stars.
We are developing a canonical form for representatives of
the similarity classes.
We naturally try to build on our previous work, meaning
first that the partial identity matrices should represent the similarity
classes into which they fall,
and beyond that, that the representatives should be as simple as possible.
The simplest extension of the partial-identity form is a diagonal form.
Definition 2.1:
- A transformation is diagonalizable if it has a diagonal representation with respect to the same basis for the codomain as for the domain. A diagonalizable matrix is one that is similar to a diagonal matrix:
is diagonalizable if there is a nonsingular
such that
is diagonal.
Example 2.2:
The matrix

is diagonalizable.

Example 2.3:
Not every matrix is diagonalizable.
The square of

is the zero matrix. Thus, for any map
that
represents (with respect to the same basis for the domain as for the codomain), the composition
is the zero map. This implies that no such map
can be diagonally represented (with respect to any
) because no power of a nonzero diagonal matrix is zero. That is, there is no diagonal matrix in
's similarity class.
That example shows that a diagonal form will not do for a
canonical form— we cannot
find a diagonal matrix in each matrix similarity class.
However, the canonical form that we are developing has the property that if
a matrix can be diagonalized then the diagonal matrix is the canonical
representative of the similarity class.
The next result characterizes which maps can be diagonalized.
Corollary 2.4:
- A transformation
is diagonalizable if and only if there is a basis
and scalars
such that
for each
.
Proof:
This follows from the definition by
considering a diagonal representation matrix.

This representation is equivalent to the existence of a basis satisfying the stated conditions simply by the definition of matrix representation.
Example 2.5:
To diagonalize

we take it as the representation of a transformation with respect to the
standard basis
and we look for a basis
such that

that is, such that
and
.

We are looking for scalars
such that this equation

has solutions
and
, which are not both zero.
Rewrite that as a linear system.

In the bottom equation
the two numbers multiply to give zero only if
at least one of them is zero so there are two possibilities,
and
.
In the
possibility,
the first equation gives that either
or
.
Since the case of both
and
is disallowed,
we are left looking at the possibility of
.
With it, the first equation in (
) is
and so associated with
are vectors
with a second component of zero and a first component that is free.

That is, one solution to (
) is
, and we have a
first basis vector.

In the
possibility,
the first equation in (
) is
, and so
associated with
are vectors whose
second component is the negative of their first component.

Thus, another solution is
and
a second basis vector is this.

To finish, drawing the similarity diagram

and noting that the matrix
is easy
leads to this diagonalization.

In the next subsection, we will expand on that example by considering
more closely the property of Corollary 2.4.
This includes seeing another way,
the way that we will routinely use, to find the
's.
Resources