I Conditions on negative definiteness

p4wp4w
Messages
8
Reaction score
5
Hello, I want to know if there exist any result in literature that answers my question:
Under which conditions on the real valued matrix ## R ## (symmetric positive definite), the first argument results in and guarantees the second one:
1) for real valued matrices ##A, B, C,## and ## D ## with appropriate dimensions and ## A ## and ## D ## being symmetric:
##X=
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B+RC\\
B^T+C^TR & D\\
\end{pmatrix} < 0##
2)
##
Y
=
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B+C\\
B^T+C^T & D\\
\end{pmatrix} < 0##
Congruence transformation doesn't help since it will affect the diagonal elements as well.
Thank you all in advance.
 
  • Like
Likes perplexabot
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried looking at Schur complements? I'm not sure it would help, but maybe.
 
  • Like
Likes p4wp4w
perplexabot said:
Have you tried looking at Schur complements? I'm not sure it would help, but maybe.
No, it won't help really. The matrix inequality is already linear (LMI) and Schur complement in that sense will just cause a second problem that the off-diagonal terms will cause nonlinearty (later ##R## should be found by interior point method). I am expecting the answer to be in the form of a second LMI on ##R## but the problem is that a lot of simplifications or even assumptions can not be done since ##R## is not square.
 
  • Like
Likes perplexabot
p4wp4w said:
No, it won't help really. The matrix inequality is already linear (LMI) and Schur complement in that sense will just cause a second problem that the off-diagonal terms will cause nonlinearty (later ##R## should be found by interior point method). I am expecting the answer to be in the form of a second LMI on ##R## but the problem is that a lot of simplifications or even assumptions can not be done since ##R## is not square.
Hmmm. Maybe you are right, Schur may not be of use. I was just throwing things out there.

Wait, you say in your last post that R is not square but in your original post you say it is positive definite?! Which one is it?
If R is positive definite and if you assume the first argument (1) is true, then one condition on R that results in argument (2) being satisfied is if R is simply the Identity matrix : P
 
  • Like
Likes p4wp4w
perplexabot said:
Hmmm. Maybe you are right, Schur may not be of use. I was just throwing things out there.

Wait, you say in your last post that R is not square but in your original post you say it is positive definite?! Which one is it?
If R is positive definite and if you assume the first argument (1) is true, then one condition on R that results in argument (2) being satisfied is if R is simply the Identity matrix : P
That's a nasty mistake that I made; I think deep down, I was looking for something like SPDness of ##R## to simplify things but ##R## is not square in general.
 
  • Like
Likes perplexabot
p4wp4w said:
That's a nasty mistake that I made; I think deep down, I was looking for something like SPDness of ##R## to simplify things but ##R## is not square in general.
Can you assume ##A## or ##D## to be positive definite?
 
##\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...
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...
Back
Top