MHB Is the Function f Non-Singular and Positive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sudharaka
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Positive
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the function \(f(X,Y) = \text{Tr}(X^t \overline{Y})\) and whether it is non-singular and positive. The term "positive" refers to positive definiteness, specifically that \(f(X,X) > 0\) for any non-zero \(X\). Participants clarify that since \(f\) outputs complex values, traditional notions of positivity may not apply directly. The conclusion affirms that the function is considered positive under the defined conditions. Understanding this context is crucial for proving the non-singularity of \(f\).
Sudharaka
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone, :)

I just want to know what "positive" means in this context? Is it positive definiteness or something? I mean, we cannot speak about the positivity or the negativity of the function \(f\) since it gives out complex values.

Problem:

Prove that the function \(f:\, M_{n}(\mathbb{C})\times M_{n}(\mathbb{C})\rightarrow \mathbb{C}\) given by \(f(X,\,Y)=\mbox{Tr }(X^{t}\overline{Y})\) is non-singular. Is \(f\) positive?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sudharaka said:
Hi everyone, :)

I just want to know what "positive" means in this context? Is it positive definiteness or something? I mean, we cannot speak about the positivity or the negativity of the function \(f\) since it gives out complex values.

Problem:

Prove that the function \(f:\, M_{n}(\mathbb{C})\times M_{n}(\mathbb{C})\rightarrow \mathbb{C}\) given by \(f(X,\,Y)=\mbox{Tr }(X^{t}\overline{Y})\) is non-singular. Is \(f\) positive?

Hi again, :)

I found the answer. This kind of sesquilinear (or Hermitian) bilinear function is called positive when \(f(X,\,X)>0\) for any \(X (\neq 0)\in M_{n}\) which makes sense. :)
 
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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
292
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K