MHB Form of symmetric matrix of rank one

i_a_n
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
The question is:Let $C$ be a symmetric matrix of rank one. Prove that $C$ must have the form $C=aww^T$, where $a$ is a scalar and $w$ is a vector of norm one.(I think we can easily prove that if $C$ has the form $C=aww^T$, then $C$ is symmetric and of rank one. But what about the opposite direction...that is what we need to prove. How to prove this?)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ianchenmu said:
The question is:Let $C$ be a symmetric matrix of rank one. Prove that $C$ must have the form $C=aww^T$, where $a$ is a scalar and $w$ is a vector of norm one.(I think we can easily prove that if $C$ has the form $C=aww^T$, then $C$ is symmetric and of rank one. But what about the opposite direction...that is what we need to prove. How to prove this?)
If $C$ has rank 1 then the range space of $C$ is 1-dimensional. Let $w$ be a unit (column) vector in this subspace, then $Cw$ must be a scalar multiple of $w$, say $Cw = aw$. Since $C$ is symmetric, $w^TC = (Cw)^T = aw^T.$ Notice also that $w^Tw = 1$ since $w$ is a unit vector.

For any other column vector $x$, $Cx$ must also be a scalar multiple of $w$, say $Cx = \lambda_xw$, which we could equally well write $Cx = w\lambda_x$ since $\lambda$ is a scalar. Then $$\lambda_x = \lambda_x w^Tw = w^T(\lambda_xw) = w^T(Cx) = (w^TC)x = aw^Tx,$$ hence $Cx = w\lambda_x = w(aw^Tx) = aww^Tx$. That holds for all vectors $x$, therefore $C = aww^T.$
 
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...
##\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...
Back
Top