Any implications of this diagonal element inequality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter winterfors
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Inequality
winterfors
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Given two definite positive definite matrices A and B of identical size with the following relationship of their diagonal elements:

A_{ii} \geq B_{ii} (no summation)

which also holds after any unitary change of coordinates

\textbf{A}'=\textbf{U}^T\textbf{A}\textbf{U}

where \textbf{U} complete set of orthonormal vectors.


Question: What does this imply in terms of inequalities on the eigenvalues of the matrices?

The sum of eigenvalues of A is of course equal of greater than the sum of eigenvalues B:s eigenvalues, but this is true even without allowing for change of coordinates. I'm sure you must be able to deduce something stronger when the inequality holds under any unitary coordinate change...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My linear algebra is very rusty so be careful of the argument below.

A-B is p.s.d .

I am assuming the matrices are real.

Now from the given condition we have for any orthogonal matrix U, the diagonal elements of U^T (A-B) U are non negative.

In particular choose U to be the orthogonal matrix corresponding to the spectral decomposition of A-B and we get all its eigenvalues as non negative.
 
Last edited:
I think this also implies that the eigenvalues of A dominate the eigenvalues of B in the following way: if \lambda_i(A) is the i^{th} largest eigenvalue of A and \lambda_i(B) is similarly defined. Then \sum_{i=1}^{k} \lambda_i(A) \geq \sum_{i=1}^{k} \lambda_i(B) for k=1,\dots,n.

This follows from the fact that for two hermitian matrices A and B of the same order we have (4.3.27 Horn and Johnson)
\sum_{i=1}^{k} \lambda_i(A+B) \geq \sum_{i=1}^{k} \lambda_i(A) + \sum_{i=1}^{k} \lambda_i(B), in particular substituting the pair A-B,B and noting \lambda_i(A-B) \geq 0 we get the result.
 
Last edited:
This was exactly what I was looking for, many thanks!
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top