Talk:Frobenius normal form

Why does the first example of a matrix in Frobenius normal form consist of three identical 2x2 blocks? This is unrepresentative and thus misleading. We should have one with a few blocks of different sizes.

John Baez 14:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, but it doesn't mean that the example should be removed, it still is illustrative. Dysprosia 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Much worse than the sizes, the minimal polynomial being square-free is extremely unrepresentative for the case where the characteristic polynomial is not. Nobody explains or motivates the Jordan normal form with an example that has only trivial (size 1) blocks either! This is horrible. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Connection with partial fraction decomposition of rational functions missing
The title says it.  franklin  14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

awful article
It doesn't even say what the relationship between the rational normal form blocks and their minimal polynomials is! jeez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.93.156 (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the edit summary suggesting that the rational normal form in the example was not the one over C, since I imagined that when the minimal/characteristic polynomial does factor over the base field, then the rational normal form would reflect this, which is apparently not the case. Apparently what I was thinking of is called the primary rational canonical form, at least that is what modules over a principal ideal domain says. It would be useful to make this distinction clear, by saying for instance that if the characteristic polynomial is split with simple roots, then the rational normal form is just the companion matrix for the characteristic polynomial, and not the diagonal form. Also the primary rational canonical form should be mentioned in this article, so that the redlink in the modules.. article can be resolved. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Turner binormal projective anyone?
I've seen quite a bit of literature on this subject, but never seen the (unexplained) term "Turner binormal projective form" used anywhere that is not obviously copied from Wikipedia (and also "rational canonical form" is both more frequent and more informative than "Frobenius normal form", but I'll leave that for the moment). Since the use is unsourced (as are the others, but these at least are easy to back up by independent sources on the internet) it is not the task of WP to push new terminology, I'll boldly remove the term for now. If any authoritative source of the use of this term can be found, please feel free to put it back, with a source reference. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Example
Why is the example given so big and arbitrary 2A00:23C8:219B:701:210D:2F5E:DF47:9E85 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)