MHB Index of Positivity in Quadratic Form: $f(X) = \sum^{n}_{i=1} x_{2}^{i}$

  • Thread starter Thread starter A.Magnus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Index
A.Magnus
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
I am working on this problem: Show that the index of positivity is $n$ for this quadratic form:

$$f: \mathbb R^n \rightarrow \mathbb R, \ f(X) = \sum^{n}_{i=1} x_{2}^{i} + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \neq j}x_ix_j.$$

Here is a solution I got from other sources: Since the index of quadratic form is the number of positive terms (or square terms) of its canonical form, and since the canonical form of $f$ is

$$\big(x_1^2 + x_2^2 + ... + x_n^2 \big)+ \frac{1}{n}\big((x_1x_2 + x_1x_3 + ... + x_1x_n) + (x_2x_3 + x_2x_4 + ... + x_2x_n) + ... \big),$$

therefore the index is $n$.

I have strong doubt that this solution is correct. Is this correct? How do I have to go about if this is wrong? Thank you for your gracious help and time. ~MA
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
MaryAnn said:
I am working on this problem: Show that the index of positivity is $n$ for this quadratic form:

$$f: \mathbb R^n \rightarrow \mathbb R, \ f(X) = \sum^{n}_{i=1} x_{2}^{i} + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \neq j}x_ix_j.$$

Here is a solution I got from other sources: Since the index of quadratic form is the number of positive terms (or square terms) of its canonical form, and since the canonical form of $f$ is

$$\big(x_1^2 + x_2^2 + ... + x_n^2 \big)+ \frac{1}{n}\big((x_1x_2 + x_1x_3 + ... + x_1x_n) + (x_2x_3 + x_2x_4 + ... + x_2x_n) + ... \big),$$

therefore the index is $n$.

I have strong doubt that this solution is correct. Is this correct? How do I have to go about if this is wrong? Thank you for your gracious help and time. ~MA

Hey MaryAnn! ;)

I didn't answer yet because I'm not familiar with this index of positivity, and I couldn't find any references to it.
Either way, with the definition you gave, it seems to me that you applied it correctly. (Nod)
 
I like Serena said:
Hey MaryAnn! ;)

I didn't answer yet because I'm not familiar with this index of positivity, and I couldn't find any references to it.
Either way, with the definition you gave, it seems to me that you applied it correctly. (Nod)

Thank you. Let me know if you find any reference to this one. Thanks again for your gracious help. ~MA
 
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
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
818
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
19K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K