Is the Matrix R Necessarily Lower Triangular in Matrix Decomposition?

Jano L.
Gold Member
Messages
1,330
Reaction score
75
I would like to learn bit more about matrices and their decomposition. Let ##\mathbf C## be symmetric real-valued square matrix. Let ##\mathbf R## be such that

$$
\mathbf R\mathbf R^T = \mathbf C.
$$

Is the matrix ##\mathbf R## necessarily lower triangular (I suspect not)?

Cholesky decomposition leads to ##\mathbf R## that is lower triangular. Is there some other method of calculationg ##\mathbf R## ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For two matrices A and B we have:

<br /> (AB)_{ij}=\sum_k A_{ik}B_{kj}<br />

Now we have B=A^T \Rightarrow B_{kj}=A_{jk} so the above equation becomes:

<br /> (AA^T)_{ij}=\sum_k A_{ik}A_{jk}<br />

Now it is obvious that (AA^T)_{ij}=(AA^T)_{ji}

So the product of any square matrix with its transpose is a symmetric matrix.
 
OK, from your example now I see ##\mathbf R## is not necessarily lower triangular. Thanks.
 
Jano L. said:
Cholesky decomposition leads to ##\mathbf R## that is lower triangular. Is there some other method of calculationg ##\mathbf R## ?
Since your matrix C is a symmetric real-valued square matrix, it can be decomposed as C=UƩUT, where U is a real unitary matrix and Ʃ is a diagonal matrix. If C is positive semidefinite, then R=UƩ1/2UT is a symmetric real-valued matrix such that RR=C. Since it's symmetric, one also has RRT=C since RT=R.
 
##\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