Showing Symmetry in Real Invertible Matrices and Non-Invertible Cases

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating that a specific expression defines an inner product for real invertible matrices, particularly focusing on the symmetry of the inner product and its properties. The original poster seeks guidance on how to approach the problem, especially when considering the case of non-invertible matrices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the symmetry of the inner product and its properties, with some suggesting interpretations of the expressions involved. There are inquiries about the necessity of explicitly writing down matrices and the implications of using different notations for vectors and matrices.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided insights into the properties of the inner product, including symmetry and positive definiteness. There is an ongoing exploration of the necessary conditions for the inner product to hold, particularly in the context of invertible versus non-invertible matrices. The conversation reflects a collaborative effort to clarify the mathematical concepts involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note conventions for notation and the importance of distinguishing between vectors and matrices. There is also mention of the implications of using different types of matrices on the properties of the inner product.

Benny
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Hi can someone please help me get started on the following question?

Q. Let A be a real invertible n * n matrix. Show that [tex]\left\langle {\mathop x\limits^ \to ,\mathop y\limits^ \to } \right\rangle \equiv \mathop y\limits^ \to A^T A\mathop x\limits^ \to = \left( {A\mathop y\limits^ \to } \right)^T \left( {A\mathop x\limits^ \to } \right)[/tex] defines an inner product in R^n, where x and y are column vectors in R^n. What happens when A is not invertible? (Note: M^T is the transpose of a matrix M, obtained by intechanging the rows and columns of M).

The first step would be to show that the inner product is symmetric I would say. I think I should get to [tex]... = \mathop x\limits^ \to A^T A\mathop y\limits^ \to[/tex] but I don't know how to do get to it. Can someone suggest a method to use? I'm not sure if I need to explicity write down a matrix in this question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(Ay)^t * (Ax) can be interpreted as the "usual" inner product of the vectors Ay and Ax...
 
Let's drop the silly arrows from vectors, eh? vectors are lower case, matrices are upper case, we'll use ascii pseudo tex so that ' means transpose.

So, we want to show that <x,y>=y'A'Ax is a real inner product.

Firstly since <x,y> is a real number, ie a vector in 1-d then it is symmtric, ie <y,x>=<x,y>. Linearity is even easier since we're just multipliying matrices.
 
You want to show that your given product is symmetric, positive definite, and multilinear. To show it's symmetric:

<x, y> = y'A'Ax
<y, x> = x'A'Ay = (x'A'Ay)' = y'A'Ax as required

The above basically says that a real number is like a 1x1 matrix, which is of course a symmetric matrix. I guess this is what you meant matt? To show it's positive definite

<x, x> = x'A'Ax = (Ax)'(Ax)

Ax is just a vector, and (Ax)'(Ax) is just the sum of the squares of the entries of Ax, so clearly <x, x> > 0 with equality iff x = 0. You can prove linearity on your own. Note you only have to prove linearity in one "component" and the fact that it is symmetric guarantees bilinearity. So just prove:

<ax + y, z> = a<x, z> + <y, z>
 
the "unofficial convention" for scalars is to use letters like r,s,t (preferably greek letters like lambda but i can't do that in plain html) for them, reserving u,v,w,x,y,z for vectors and A,B for matrices.

and yes, that was what i meant, AKG about 1x1 matrices and real numbers being the same thing.
 
Thanks for the help guys. When I write vectors I normally use a tilde, I just used arrows because I didn't know how to put a little squiggle underneath the vectors.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K