I split off this question from the thread here:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/error-in-landau-lifshitz-mechanics.901356/

In that thread, I was told that a symmetric matrix ##\mathbf{A}## with real positive definite eigenvalues ##\{\lambda_i\} \in \mathbb{R}^+## is always real. I feel that I must be overlooking something simple, as I can't seem to prove it. Clearly the determinant and trace are positive, (so the matrix is nonsingular) and if it's diagonalizable, then the matrix is similar to a real matrix (namely the diagonal eigenvalue matrix). But I'm not seeing how this implies that the original ##\mathbf{A}## is real.

I've seen various claims that a symmetric matrix can be written as ##\mathbf{A} = \mathbf{O}^T\mathbf{D}\mathbf{O}##, where ##\mathbf{O}## is an orthogonal matrix and ##\mathbf{D}## is the diagonal eigenvalue matrix, but sometimes (e.g., Wikipedia) the claim is explicitly for real symmetric matrices and sometimes (e.g., Mathworld) it is unspecified whether the claim is for real matrices or for all symmetric matrices. If it's true forallsymmetric matrices, then we're done, because orthogonal matrices are necessarily real. but if it's only true forrealsymmetric matrices, then we're back to square one.

I also tried working out the case for 2x2 matrices explicitly. The characteristic polynomial is

$$0 = \lambda^2-\lambda\mathrm{tr}(\mathbf{A})+\mathrm{det}(\mathbf{A})$$

Since ##\lambda^2 > 0##, we have that

$$\lambda(a_{11}+a_{22})-(a_{11}a_{22} - a_{12}^2) > 0$$

must be real. Writing this out explicitly as complex numbers gives:

$$\lambda((a+bi)+(c+di)) > [(a+bi)(c+di)-(e+fi)^2]$$

where ##a,b,c,d,e,f \in \mathbb{R}##. To get rid of the imaginary part, we need to satisfy:

$$0 = \lambda(b+d)-bc-ad+2ef$$

Since ##\mathrm{tr}(\mathbf{A}) > 0##, we get ##b+d = 0##. Since ##\mathrm{det}(\mathbf{A}) > 0##, we get ##bc+ad-2ef = 0##. So we have two conditions to satisfy:

$$b(c-a)+2ef=0$$

ensures reality, and:

$$\lambda(a+c)>ac+b^2-e^2+f^2$$

ensures positivity.

However, I don't see how in general, this implies ##b=d=f=0## such that the overall matrix is real. (EDIT: if one of ##b,d,f=0## then all of them must be zero by the first condition.)

It's a weird problem because I'm so used to dealing with either real symmetric matrices or complex Hermitian matrices, that I'm not sure what linear algebra rules apply to complex symmetric matrices. Thanks for any insight you can provide.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# I Is a symmetric matrix with positive eigenvalues always real?

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - symmetric matrix positive | Date |
---|---|

I Linear algebra ( symmetric matrix) | Jan 16, 2017 |

I General form of symmetric 3x3 matrix with only 2 eigenvalues | May 10, 2016 |

Determinant and symmetric positive definite matrix | May 26, 2015 |

A condition on principle minors of a symmetric Positive semidefinite (PSD) matrix | Apr 3, 2010 |

Given a real nxn symmetric and non-positive definite matrix, . . . | Dec 18, 2007 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**