Recipe
Compute the Rayleigh quotient at a vector
Use when: you have a symmetric matrix A and a specific nonzero vector x, and need the single number R_A(x)
Goal: the value of R_A(x), plus whether it equals an eigenvalue exactly
Taught in The Rayleigh quotient
Quick recipe
-
1
Multiply A by x first, then look at the result: does it point the same way as x, just rescaled?
Example
For B=\begin{bmatrix}2&1\\1&2\end{bmatrix} and x=(1,-1), Bx=(1,-1), exactly 1 times x itself.
- Ax is a scalar multiple \lambda x of x — x is an eigenvector, and R_A(x)=\lambda exactly; skip straight to that answer.
- Ax is not a scalar multiple of x — continue to Step 2 and compute the quotient directly.
⚡ Shortcut
At an eigenvector, don't bother forming the numerator and denominator at all: the scalar you already spotted in Ax=\lambda x IS R_A(x).
Why: this section proves R_A(x)=\lambda exactly whenever Ax=\lambda x, so recognizing an eigenvector first can skip the rest of the computation.
-
2
Take the dot product of x with the Ax you already computed.
Example
For A=\begin{bmatrix}3&1\\1&2\end{bmatrix} and x=(1,0), Ax=(3,1), so x^{\mathsf T}Ax=(1)(3)+(0)(1)=3.
Why: R_A(x)'s definition starts from exactly this product, not from A and x separately.
-
3
Take the dot product of x with itself, which is \|x\|^2.
Example
x^{\mathsf T}x=(1)(1)+(0)(0)=1.
- x is already given as a unit vector — the denominator is exactly 1, so it can be skipped.
- x is not a unit vector — compute x^{\mathsf T}x explicitly before dividing.
Why: dividing by \|x\|^2 is exactly what makes R_A ignore x's length and depend only on its direction.
-
4
Divide the Step 2 numerator by the Step 3 denominator.
Example
R_A(x)=3/1=3.
Why: this ratio is the Rayleigh quotient's definition, and every earlier step exists only to build its two pieces.
Common mistakes
- Dividing by x^{\mathsf T}x before checking whether x is already a unit vector, wasting a step.
- Forgetting to check whether Ax is a scalar multiple of x first, and missing a free exact answer.
- Computing Ax^{\mathsf T} or another mismatched product instead of the scalar x^{\mathsf T}Ax.
- Assuming R_A(cx) must be recomputed from scratch for a new scalar c, instead of recognizing it equals R_A(x) by scale-invariance.