| New Reply |
How can I find a solution valid for "all" cases? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Nov10-11, 09:41 PM | #1 |
|
|
How can I find a solution valid for "all" cases?
I have an equation:
[itex]tr\left\{\textbf{AB}\right\} = \sigma[/itex] where [itex]tr\left\{\right\}[/itex] denotes the matrix trace. The square matrix [itex]\textbf{A}[/itex] is independent of both the square matrix [itex]\textbf{B}[/itex] and the real scalar [itex]\sigma[/itex]. I want to determine all possible values of [itex]\textbf{B}[/itex] that will allow the above equation to hold for all [itex]\textbf{A}[/itex], given the only constraint: [itex]tr\left\{\textbf{A}\right\} = 1[/itex] For example, I can see that [itex]\textbf{B}=\sigma \textbf{I}[/itex] will always be valid (where [itex]\textbf{I}[/itex] is the identity matrix). But can I guarantee that there are no other possible values for [itex]\textbf{B}[/itex]? I have been pondering this problem for some time and cannot see a way of approaching it. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! |
| Nov11-11, 09:31 AM | #2 |
|
Recognitions:
|
Let [itex] A_{i,j} [/itex] denote a matrix whose [itex] (i,j) [/itex] entry is 1 and the rest of whose entries are zero. If the equation was true for all matrices it would work for each [itex] A_{i,j} [/itex]. Is that going to be possible?
|
| Nov11-11, 10:22 AM | #3 |
|
|
|
| Nov11-11, 10:48 AM | #4 |
|
|
How can I find a solution valid for "all" cases?
I hope someone will have the time to read through the following attempt and point out any errors in my reasoning:
The [itex]\left( i,i\right) ^{th}[/itex] element of [itex]\boldsymbol{AB}[/itex] can be written as: [itex] \left[ \boldsymbol{AB}\right] _{i,i}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{ij}b_{ji} [/itex] Therefore the trace is: [itex] {tr}\left\{ \boldsymbol{AB}\right\} =\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{ij}b_{ji}=\sigma [/itex] Our only constraint is: [itex] {tr}\left\{ \boldsymbol{A}\right\} =\sum_{i=1}^{N}a_{ii}=1 [/itex] Therefore, we can write: [itex] \begin{eqnarray*} {tr}\left\{ \boldsymbol{AB}\right\} &=&\sigma {tr}\left\{ \boldsymbol{A}\right\} \\ \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{ij}b_{ji} &=&\sigma \sum_{i=1}^{N}a_{ii} \end{eqnarray*} [/itex] Clearly, the right hand side is only a function of diagonal terms. Therefore, the [itex]a_{ij}[/itex] ([itex]i\neq j[/itex]) terms must be eliminated from the left hand side by assuming all [itex]b_{ji}[/itex] ([itex]j\neq i[/itex]) terms are zero. Therefore [itex]\boldsymbol{B}[/itex] must be diagonal and: [itex] \sum_{i=1}^{N}a_{ii}b_{ii}=\sigma \sum_{i=1}^{N}a_{ii} [/itex] The only way (I think) [itex]\boldsymbol{B}[/itex] can satisfy this in general is if the [itex]b_{ii}[/itex] terms can be removed from the summation (i.e. they are a constant). Clearly, that constant is [itex]\sigma [/itex]: [itex] \boldsymbol{B}=\sigma \boldsymbol{I} [/itex] |
| Nov12-11, 01:23 PM | #5 |
|
Mentor
|
I didn't quite follow your argument about diagonal terms, but I think you have at least started on the right track. I also think you're making it a bit more complicated than it needs to be. I would begin like this: Let A be an arbitrary matrix such that Tr A=1. Let B be an arbitrary matrix such that Tr(AB)=σ. Then Tr(AB)=σTr(A).
Now start making specific choices of A, to see how they constrain B. For example, what does the equality Tr(AB)=σTr(A) say when A11=1 and all other components of A are =0? |
| Nov12-11, 02:56 PM | #6 |
|
|
Thanks for the advice. I think this idea of choosing various specific examples for [itex]\textbf{A}[/itex] is a very good one and could simplify matters significantly. I'll see what I can come up with...
|
| New Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: How can I find a solution valid for "all" cases?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| In binary can we have a value with "deci" "centi" "mili" or more lower valued prefix? | Computers | 14 | ||
| Is it common to find the "applied" explanations more confusing than the "theoretical" | Academic Guidance | 1 | ||
| Simple Circuit: Find "v1" and "v2" | Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework | 6 | ||
| Don't understand why "an indefinite integral is valid only on a interval" | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 2 | ||