Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverse eigenvalues theorem Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inverse_eigenvalues_theorem

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eigendecomposition of a matrix. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse eigenvalues theorem

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I work in linear algebra and I have never seen this basic fact called a "theorem" and given a proper name. A Google search seems to report no results as well, apart from Wikipedia and all the sites copying its content. Fph 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed nomination, which should be close seven days after 02:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either Merge to Theorems and definitions in linear algebra#Diagonalization, where this theorem isn't given but probably should be, or Redirect to Eigendecomposition of a matrix#Useful facts regarding eigenvalues, where this theorem is already given. Which is more suitable depends in part on which of these two versions of the theorem the rigorous qualified WPMATHematicians consider to be better. Qwfp (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to eigendecomposition of a matrix. We don't need a detailed proof of this result. It's a standard exercise in linear algebra courses. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Sławomir Biały. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Sławomir Biały. I've not come across it before, or have long ago forgotten it, but the proof is obvious and trivial.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete appropriately as discussed above. cannot have a page for this stuff alone0ukieu (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.