MHB Can Any Complex Matrix Be Decomposed into Hermitian and Skew-Hermitian Parts?

ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
If C NOT Hermitian, show we can decompose C into $\frac{1}{2}\left( C + {C}^{\dagger} \right) +\frac{1}{2i}i\left( C- {C}^{\dagger} \right) $

I've managed to prove C = C a couple of times, EG taking Hermitian or conjugate of both sides, probably there is a bit of info I am not thinking of or missing altogether, a hint please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ognik said:
If C NOT Hermitian, show we can decompose C into $\frac{1}{2}\left( C + {C}^{\dagger} \right) +\frac{1}{2i}i\left( C- {C}^{\dagger} \right) $

I've managed to prove C = C a couple of times, EG taking Hermitian or conjugate of both sides, probably there is a bit of info I am not thinking of or missing altogether, a hint please?

I'm guessing there's a bit more to this problem. That the RHS equals the LHS you've probably already shown, as indicated by your statement that you've proved "C = C a couple of times". I'm guessing the problem wants you to investigate the first matrix, $(C+C^{\dagger})/2$, and the second matrix, $(C-C^{\dagger})/2$, a bit more closely. What are their properties?
 
I had, but on second looks, it seems ridiculously easy...

Let $H(C)=\frac{1}{2}(C+C^{\dagger}) $, then $H^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{2}(C^{\dagger}+C) = H$

Similarly $S(C)^{\dagger}= -S$

I remember similar expressions for symmetric Matrices (same proof?) isn't there a similar formula for complex numbers?

...and why do they show the formula for C with $\frac{1}{2i}i$?
 
Exactly - you've got it. So, the moral of the story is that you can write any (square) matrix as the sum of an Hermitian matrix, and a skew-Hermitian matrix. These two kinds of matrices have special properties that are nice to work with in certain circumstances.

I have no idea why they didn't just write
$$C=\frac12\left(C+C^{\dagger}\right)+\frac12\left(C-C^{\dagger}\right).$$
Probably to confuse the newbie. ;)
 
This book excels at that :confused: suppose it gives the neurons more exercise. (Can't imagine why the Uni didn't use the latest edition...)

The other formula I was thinking of is $ z = \frac{1}{2}(z+z^*) + \frac{1}{2i}(z-z^*) $, real + imag component, even easier to prove
 
This is my theory (as to the form of the decomposition):

$(C - C^{\dagger})^{\dagger} = -(C - C^{\dagger})$ is skew-Hermitian, whereas:

$(i(C - C^{\dagger}))^{\dagger} = (-i)(-(C - C^{\dagger})) = i(C - C^{\dagger})$ is Hermitian.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K