Complex Cholesky Decomposition

magda3227
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I am having trouble finding information about decomposing a complex symmetric positive definite matrix. I was wondering if the cholesky decomposition would change to accommodate complex numbers. I understand that multiplying, dividing, and taking the square root of complex numbers is not the same as with real numbers, but would any additional components need to be added to the algorithm?

I only ask because I am writing a C program and need to implement the Cholesky function. I have written code that works properly for the real decomposition, but when I try to use complex numbers, I am not getting the correct answer.

I did read this, however...
"All the square roots appearing are real. So if one writes a computer programme
implementing the Cholesky factorisation one can be sure that no
complex numbers appear in the course of the computation."

How would this be so? The answer has imaginary parts, not on the diagonals (is that what this means), but elsewhere.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Back
Top