English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Considered are combinatorially symmetric matrices, whose graph is a given tree, in view of the fact recent analysis shows that the geometric multiplicity theory for the eigenvalues of such matrices closely parallels that for real symmetric (and complex Hermitian) matrices. In contrast to the real symmetric case, it is shown that (a) the smallest example (13 vertices) of a tree and multiplicity list (3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1) meeting standard necessary conditions that has no real symmetric realizations does have a diagonalizable realization and for arbitrary prescribed (real and multiple) eigenvalues, and (b) that all trees with diameter &lt; 8 are geometrically di-minimal (i.e., have diagonalizable realizations with as few of distinct eigenvalues as the diameter). This re-raises natural questions about multiplicity lists that proved subtly false in the real symmetric case. What is their status in the geometric multiplicity list case?

Diagonalizable matrices whose graph is a tree: the minimum number of distinct eigenvalues and the feasibility of eigenvalue assignments