Can't understand a step in an LU decomposition proof

In summary: So this is not quite right. In summary, the proof shows that the permutations performed by ##P_j## and ##P_j^T## will move the only non-zero element of ##M##, but it will still remain below the main diagonal after the permutation. The indices ##s, i## correspond to the row and column of the non-zero element of ##M##, and the permutation matrix ##P_j## swaps the ##j##-th row with the ##r##-th row, where ##r > j##. This is shown by the result of ##P_j \cdot A##, which is obtained by applying ##P_j## to the rows of ##A##. The scalar ##\alpha## in
  • #1
Shirish
244
32
I'm reading about the LU decomposition on this page and cannot understand one of the final steps in the proof to the following:
----------------
Let ##A## be a ##K\times K## matrix. Then, there exists a permutation matrix ##P## such that ##PA## has an LU decomposition: $$PA=LU$$ where ##L## is a lower triangular ##K\times K## matrix and ##U## is an upper triangular ##K\times K## matrix.
----------------
I'll reproduce the proof here:
----------------
Through Gaussian elimination, ##A## can be reduced to a row-echelon (hence upper triangular) matrix ##U## via a series of ##n## elementary operations: $$E_n\bullet\ldots\bullet E_1\bullet A = U$$
Any elementary matrix ##E_i## used in Gaussian elimination is either a permutation matrix ##P_i## or a matrix ##L_i## used to add a multiple of one row to a row below it. Thus, ##L_i## will be lower triangular with non-zero diagonal ##\implies## invertible. Suppose that the first permutation matrix we encounter is in position ##j##, so that we have:
$$E_n\bullet\ldots\bullet E_{j+1}\bullet P_j\bullet L_{j-1}\bullet\ldots\bullet L_1\bullet A = U$$
Since a permutation matrix is orthogonal, ##P_j^T P_j = I## and hence
$$E_n\bullet\ldots\bullet E_{j+1}\bullet P_j\bullet L_{j-1}\bullet P_j^TP_j \bullet\ldots\bullet P_j^TP_j\bullet L_1\bullet P_j^TP_j\bullet A = U$$ or
$$E_n\bullet\ldots\bullet E_{j+1}\bullet\tilde{L}_{j-1}\bullet\ldots\bullet\tilde{L}_1\bullet P_j\bullet A = U$$
for ##i=1,\ldots,j-1##. A matrix ##L_i##, used to add ##\alpha## times the ##i##-th row to the ##s##-th row (in this case ##s>i##), can be written as a rank one update to the identity matrix: ##L_i=I+M##, where ##M## is a matrix whose entries are all zeros except ##M_{si} = \alpha##. We have that
$$\tilde{L}_i = P_jL_iP_j^T = P_j(I+M)P_j^T = P_jP_j^T + P_jMP_j^T = I+P_jMP_j^T$$
--------------------
So far so good. Then we have:
--------------------
The permutations performed on the rows and columns of ##M## by ##P_j## and ##P_j^T## can move the only non-zero element of ##M##, but that element remains below the main diagonal (because ##j>i##).
--------------------
I can't understand this. ##M## is derived from ##L_i##, which means that ##M_{si} = L_i - I = \alpha \neq 0## and all other elements of ##M## are ##0##. Nothing has been said about ##P_j##. I'm guessing ##P_j## swaps ##j##-th row with ##r##-th row, where ##r>j##. What do the indices ##s,i## have anything to do with the indices ##r,j##?

I'd be grateful if anyone could clear this up!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Shirish said:
So far so good. Then we have:
--------------------
The permutations performed on the rows and columns of ##M## by ##P_j## and ##P_j^T## can move the only non-zero element of ##M##, but that element remains below the main diagonal (because ##j>i##).
--------------------
I can't understand this.

Please give more details on ##P_j##. What does it look like / what exactly does it do? I'm guessing it swaps row ##j## with ##j -1## (a basic transposition going backward). Put differently what if we have

##A=
\begin{bmatrix}
\tilde{ \mathbf a_1}^T \\
\tilde{ \mathbf a_2}^T \\
\vdots\\
\tilde{ \mathbf a}_{j-1}^T \\
\tilde{ \mathbf a}_{j}^T \\
\tilde{ \mathbf a}_{j+1}^T \\
\vdots\\
\tilde{ \mathbf a}_{n-1}^T \\
\tilde{ \mathbf a}_n^T
\end{bmatrix}##

what does ##P_j \cdot A## look like? Maybe you said it and I missed it, but I didn't see that in here and it is key.
- - - -
A better way to write out what is going on is as follows, using standard basis vectors:

##M = \alpha \mathbf e_s \mathbf e_i^T##
so
##P_j MP_j^T ##
##= \alpha P_j\mathbf e_s \mathbf e_i^TP_j ^T ##
##= \alpha \big(P_j \mathbf e_s\big)\big( P_j \mathbf e_i\big)^T ##

This is the point where I need you to fill in some details -- in particular what exactly does ##P_j## do? Can you write out the possible outcomes of ##P_j \mathbf e_s## and ##P_j \mathbf e_i##?

- - - -
Shirish said:
##M## is derived from ##L_i##, which means that ##M_{si} = L_i - I = \alpha \neq 0##

This is a bit troubling. You defined ##\alpha ## to be a scalar earlier on and somehow ##M_{si}## is a scalar (more common notation would be ##m_{si}##) but ##L_i## and ##I## are both matrices.
 

1. What is LU decomposition?

LU decomposition is a method used in linear algebra to decompose a square matrix into a lower triangular matrix (L) and an upper triangular matrix (U). This method is useful for solving systems of linear equations and finding the inverse of a matrix.

2. Why is LU decomposition important?

LU decomposition allows for efficient computation of matrix operations, such as solving systems of linear equations and finding the inverse of a matrix. It also helps to reduce the amount of rounding errors that can occur when performing calculations on large matrices.

3. How does LU decomposition work?

LU decomposition involves finding a lower triangular matrix (L) and an upper triangular matrix (U) that, when multiplied together, result in the original matrix. This is achieved by using Gaussian elimination to reduce the original matrix to upper triangular form, and then using back substitution to solve for the entries of the lower triangular matrix.

4. What is the purpose of LU decomposition proof?

The proof of LU decomposition is important in understanding the mathematical basis of the method and its properties. It also helps to ensure the correctness and validity of the algorithm, and provides a basis for further developments and applications.

5. What can I do if I can't understand a step in the LU decomposition proof?

If you are having trouble understanding a step in the LU decomposition proof, you can try breaking it down into smaller parts and working through each part individually. You can also consult with a teacher or a peer for clarification, or look for additional resources such as textbooks or online tutorials to help you better understand the concept.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
9
Views
896
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top